alone. if we detect an imminent threat of attack that will cause significant physical destruction in the united states or kill american citizens, we need to have the option to take action against those who would attack us, to defend this nation when directed by the president. for these kinds of scenarios the department has developed the capability to conduct effective operations --we will only do so in a manner consistent with the policies consistent -- and legal

framework that the department follows four other dream act -- domains, including armed conflict. that brings me to the second area of focus. responding to the cyber threat requires the right policies and organizations across the federal government. for the past year, the department of defense has been working closely with other agencies to understand where are the lines of responsibility when it comes to cyber defense? where do we draw those lines? how do those responsibilities get executed? as part of that effort, the department is now finalizing the most comprehensive change to our rules of engagement in cyberspace in seven years. the new rules will make clear that the department has a responsibility not only to be

thin d.o.d.'s networks -- to networks, but to defend the nation and our natural -- national interests in cyberspace. these new rules makes the department more agile and provides us with the ability to confront major threats quickly. to execute these responsibilities, we must have strong organizational structures in place. three years ago, the department took a major step forward by establishing the united states cyber command. under the leadership of a four start officer who also served as the director of the national security agency, cyber command has matured into what i believe it is a world-class organization. it has the capacity to conduct a

full range of missions in cyberspace. it is also working to develop a common real time understanding of the threats in cyberspace. the that picture could be quickly shared with d.o.d.'s geographic and functional combatant commanders, with dhs, fbi and other agencies in government. we need to see an attack coming in order to defend against that attack. we are looking at ways to strengthen cipher command as well. we must ensure that it has the resources, the authority, the capability required to perform this mission. it must also be able to react quickly to events unfolding in cyberspace and fully integrate cyber into all of the department

also plans and activities. finally, the third area is to build stronger partnership. as i have made clear, securing cyberspace is not the sole response ability of the united states military or even the sole responsibility of the united states government. the private-sector, government, military, our allies all share the same local infrastructure. we all share a deep responsibility to protect it. we are deepening cooperation with our closest allies with the goal of sharing that information, that a mighty cheer capabilities, and determining malicious activities -- maximizing sheered capabilities and determining militias

activities. we have made cyber a major topic of discussion in all about our bilateral meetings with foreign counterparts. -- all of our bilateral meetings with foreign counterparts. as i mentioned earlier, china is rapidly growing its cyber capabilities. in my visit to beijing, i under scored the need to increase communication and transparency with each other so that we could avoid a misunderstanding or a miss calculation in cyberspace. -- miscalculation in cyberspace. this is in the interest of the united states and china. no one has a greater interest in ciba security than the businesses that depend -- in cyber security than the businesses that depend on a safe and secure global infrastructure, particularly

those who operate the critical network that we must help defense. to be sent those networks more effectively, we must share information between the government and the private sector about threats in cyberspace. we have made real progress in sharing information with the private sector. frankly, we need congress to act to ensure that this sharing is timely and comprehensive. companies should be able to share a specific threat information with the government without the prospect of lawsuits and open their heads. a key principle must be to protect the fundamental liberties and privacy in cyberspace that we are all duty bound to uphold. information sharing alone is not sufficient. we have got to work with the

business community to develop baseline standards for our most critical private-sector infrastructure, our power plants, our water treatment facilities, our gas pipelines. this would help insure that companies take proactive measures to secure themselves against sophisticated threats. but also take common sense threats -- steps against basic threats. although awareness is growing, the reality is two thank you companies have invested -- too few companies have invested in even basic ciba security. -- cyber security legislation must be passed by the congress. we must -- without it, we are and we will be vulnerable.

congress must act now on a comprehensive bill such as the bipartisan cyber security act of 2012 co-sponsored by senators lieberman, collins, rockefeller, and feinstein. [applause] this legislation has bipartisan support. but it has fallen victim to legislative and political gridlock like so much else in washington. that is unacceptable. it should be unacceptable not just to me, but to you and to anyone concerned with safeguarding our national security. while we wait for congress to act, the administration is looking to enhance cyber security measures under existing authorities by working with the private sector to promote best practices, increase information sharing.

they are considering issuing an executive order as one option to try to deal with the situation. but there is no substitute for comprehensive legislation. we need to move as far as we can in the meantime. we have no choice. the threat that we face is already here. congress has a responsibility to act. the president of the united states has a constitutional responsibility to defend our country. i want to urge each of you to add your voice to those who support stronger cyber expenses for our country. in closing, let me say something that i know the people of new york, along with all americans, will appreciate. before september 11, 2001, the

warning signs were there. we were not organized. we were not ready. and we suffered terribly. for that lack of attention. we cannot let that happen again. this is pre-9/11 moments. the attackers are plotting. our systems will never be an penetrable just like our physical defenses -- in penetrable. just like our physical defenses. we need congress and we need all of you to help in that effort. the department of defense is doing its part.

tonight, i am asking you to do yours. as citizens and as business leaders. help us innovate. help us increase the nation's ciba security by securing your own networks. -- cyber security by securing your own networks. by doing so, you will help insure that cyberspace continues to bring prosperity to your companies and to people across the world. cyber security has been identified as a key national security challenge where business and government must partner together. i would like to thank ben for his leadership in this area. thank you again for your recognition of the efforts we have made. more broadly, let me thank you for your commitment to the dream

that guides all of us in this nation. i talked about my parents as immigrants. i used to ask my father why did he travel all of that distance to come to a strange land, leaving the comfort of family. was a poor area in italy, but why would you leave your comfortable family to travel all of that distance to a strange land? my father said the reason he did it was because he and my mother believed that they could give their children a better life. that is the american dream. that is what we want for our children. we have achieved that dream because we always have been able to defend our interests and our values. that must remain our most

important mission. on land, at sea, in the air, in space, and in cyberspace. this is not just a responsibility. it is a duty that we go - owe to our children and -- owe to our children and their children in the future. >> we have white house coverage coming up in about an hour. vice president joe biden will greet supporters in wisconsin. he is at the university of wisconsin. he will be introduced by his wife, jill, and we will have coverage starting at 2:45 eastern. mitt romney is teaming up with paul ryan for a rally in lancaster, ohio. c-span will have live coverage

of that starting at 5:40 p.m. eastern. >> can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the mud? there is a need, if we can take a poll here. there is a need to focus on the needs. >> how the gentlemen response? >> let's talk about these issues. let's talk about the programs that, in the presidency, a lot goes into it. caring goes into it. that is not specific. strength goes into it. that is not specific. this is what a president has to do. in principle, i will take your point and i think we ought to discuss child care or whatever else it is. >> and you, too? >> i will take the place because i know the american people want to talk about issues and not

tabloid journalism. i will take the pledge and talk about the issues. for the record, i do not have any spin doctors or speechwriters. it probably shows. [laughter] i make those charts you see on television. if you don't have to wonder it is me talking. what you see is what you get. if you do not like it, you have two other choices. >> i want to say one thing. the ideas i express our mind. i am the only person up here who has not been part of washington in any way for the last 20 years. i do not want the implication to be that somehow, everything we say is cooked up and put in our heads. i worked for 12 years as a governor on the real problems of real people. >> before president obama and mitt romney faced questions for -- face questions from voters,

watched the the data between senator john mccain and senator debate betweenthe senator john mccain and senator barack obama. >> c-span brings a special perspective into what is happening in washington, particularly your coverage of the house and the senate. if something is going on in the house and the senate -- and something will go on in the next five years. maybe not this year -- c-span coverage this authoritatively, very well and it is one of the major new sources in washington. we are all struggling with what is point to happen with health care.

c-span was the board data was covering what is happening with health care. c-span is the authority of boys in terms of what the -- voice about what we congress is doing. >> c-span, created in 1979 and brought to you as a public service. >> this government has promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the soviet military buildup on the island of cuba. within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. the purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the western hemisphere.

>> do you deny that the u.s.s.r. has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range missiles at sites in cuba. yes or no? do not wait for the transition -- translation. >> live from the jfk presidential library and museum , historians, scholars, filmmakers, and journalists on the cuban missile crisis. starting at about 30 p.m. on c- span 3, american history tv. vice president biden campaigning in wisconsin coming up at 2:45 p.m.. host: we are back live on quality control and on your screen now is thomas nardone with the bureau of labor statistics.

he is the associate, commissioner of unemployment and employment statistics. withinardo, let's start the unemployment rate, 7.8% currently, correct? guest: that is correct. host: how does bls labor statistics get to the number, briefly guest: there is a step -- a survey done every month that its content -- conducted by the census bureau. 60,000 households are interviewed every month for people in the household over the age of 15 and we ask a series of questions to determine if they are one of three categories. are they working, which would make them employed? have been actively seeking work in the prior four weeks, which would make them unemployed. and if they are not in those two words, they are not in the labour force. it is a sample survey, like a poll. host: is it random? guest: essentially, yes.

it is more complicated than that, the statisticians would say, but yes, it is random peridot host: is it the same 60,000 every month? or a different 60,000 exxon -- different 60,000? guest: if they agree to the survey, there will be in it for four months, out of it for eight, and then at come back into it for another four. host: how closely do you find when you review what you have done cannot because there always seems to be an adjustment a month or two down the road, correct? you come back and say, well, this is what we found. how close is bls to the actual results? guest: the data from the household survey is not revised every month. there is another survey that is done every month, which is a survey of business establishments. there are about 486,000

business establishments survey every month. because of the large size of that sample, we first received the data, we do not have the reports in for all of these establishments. when we get more reports in subsequently, that is why there is a revision to what is commonly referred to as the jobs. that is where we have that provision. host: the numbers are on the screen. if you like to dial in, please do. christopher rugaber with the associated press is an economics reviewer. i wanted to ask you about what jack welch, the former chair of ge, wrote in "the wall street journal" this week. he wrote three statistics.

the labor participation rate, the growth in government workers were achieved over the past 8 months have to raise some eyebrows. there were no economists predicting that unemployment in september would drop below a%. -- 8% were you as an economics reporter, someone who covers this issue, were you surprised at the drop in unemployment? guest: yes, i was, but frequently, we are surprised by the jobs report. i joke with my editor and so forth about preparing for different outcomes. usually, it comes out and it will we did not prepare for. it is not unusual for it to be surprising, in a funny way. the household survey that tom was talking about that gives us the unemployment rate is a volatile survey and at times. you have sudden moves. the unemployment rate cabin --

had been relatively flat for almost eight months and then there was this drop. it is not that unusual, either. tom initially change his tune. there was a comment that suggested manipulation by the obamas administration. i do not know if you suggest it, but you said straight out that the obama administration had manipulated it. then you change your tune a little bit. what usually happens over time is that some of these things even out. we are unlikely to see another sharp drop-off in the unemployment rate. another issue that appears to be true is that we are near a low level of people in terms of those participating in the work force. and it went up last month, but it is near a 30-year low. there are still aspects of the job market that are still weak. the unemployment rate is still

obviously very high. he had a lot of interesting things to say, but the "wall street journal", it was a bit different from the tweet he put out. host: mr. nardone, what is the bls response to what jack welch wrote? guest: the response to the idea that somebody in the white house called us up and told us that the unemployment rate needed to be 7.8%, that is simply not true. it did not happened. if it did happen, the folks that work on these numbers, they would be the ones the sending out a tweet. putting that aside and talking about issues that were raised, should you focus exclusively on one month's number? we would absolutely agree, no, there are lots of numbers in the press release. we put out lots of data. it is important and we knowledge of up-front that the

knowledge -- that the data are subject to a sampling error of. they are estimates. we try to make them as good as we can, but they are only estimates of what is going on in the job market. host: total non-farm trollops january 2003 as a timber 2012, this is a chart here. it is currently on the upswing. can you tell us where we stand right now? what does this september, 2012 figure mean and what is it? guest: what this chart shows is that as we all know, there was a huge loss of jobs. that is the shaded part of the jobs. we lost about 8.8 million jobs during the recession. the job loss continued beyond what was considered the official end of the recession. the national bureau of economic

research said it ended in june, 2009. payroll employment kept dropping until february, 2010. since are very, 2010, we have added 4.3 million jobs. but that still means we are 4.5 million below where we were at the restored -- at the start of the recession. host: how is it that the unemployment rate is going down? our people dropping out of the job search? guest: that essentially happening some. zogby but it discouraged. others returned to school either because they are frustrated or because they want to get more training or education. some people are finding jobs. economists have looked at different calculations of which is the better factor -- the bigger factor, or people dropping out or getting more education and training and my understanding is that there are

equal roles being played by each for spirit -- each force. but there are definitely some dropping out. some of that is the baby boom generation starting to retire. it may not be a "dropping out," but people choosing to retire and leave their jobs. some older people may have lost their jobs and cannot find new ones and are taking early social security benefits. there is some of that. host: mr. r doane, the labor force participation -- mr. nardone, a labor force position rick, please explain this. guest: the take the people who are employed in those who are unemployed and combine them and you get what is called the labour force. divide that by the population in at 16 and over and you're of the force participation rate. is the proportion of the population that is either employed or actively looking for work. and this chart shows the trend

rate over a long time for empirical -- timeframe. you are looking at several things, sort of long-term secular trends that go on, but also the impact of the recession. you can see the rate dropped quite a bit during that shaded timeframe, but lost one, that represents the recession. it is also interesting to note that the rate never really got back up to where it was between those two shaded areas. the one in the middle representing the recession in early 2001. at the rate never really recovered from where it was. that was sort of a combination of a cyclical and secular factors. for many decades, the labor force participation rate was trending up because of more

women entering the labour force, and also because of more young people, people born during the baby boom era. worde late 1990's, a long abroad -- long-term upward trend, per dissipation of women find out. what we saw in the last decade we saw what was going on in the business cycle. rates were affected by that. what we are seeing now is a combination of that and probably also the baby boomers are retiring and moving out of the labour force. host: chris berber berber -- christopher rugaber, how would you describe the jobs economy and right now? guest: this is the weakest recovery we have had since world war ii. the jobs numbers each month, we have averaged around 145,000

jobs created per month this year. that is barely enough to keep up with the growth of the working age population. and it has been a somewhat brazilian recovery in that there have been a lot of fears that we would go back into recession at various times and that has not happened. the overall economy has grown roughly 2% since the recession ended in june, 2009. that is a fairly weak growth rate, particularly after the death of the recession. by many measures, this is easily the worst since the great depression corporate -- the so the weak growth we've had since then has been difficult for the unemployed. we have a lot of long-term unemployed, that's been a record -- in the past it's at

record levels. and we've talked about the crisis of long-term unemployment. hopefully it will pick up soon. host: let's take some calls from our guest and we want to hear about your job suation. caller: good morning. host: please tell us your situation caller: my situation is plob is -- president obama is doing a good job the past four years. president obama gives jobs to healthcare. healthcare is helping people to get medication and number one i lost my job 2009.

my family go to clinic obama program so obama do good job but four years is not enough to do what obama is supposed to do. host: we'll leave it there. when we talk about 7.8% of the work force unemployed, how many people are we talking about? guest: about 12 million people now. host: what about people that have drop you had out of the search guest: we refer to them as marginally attached to the labor force and there are about 2.2 million people. these are people who haven't looked within the last four weeks but they looked sometime within the last 12 months or since they lost a job and

they're not currently looking. now a subset of that group are people referred to as discouraged lookers and they said i'm not currently looking because i don't think there are any jobs available for available for which i would qualify. and there are about 800,000 of those folks. host: how many people are in the work force? guest: there are about 150 million people in the work force. host: how many people have been on unemployed for an extended period of time, 27 weeks or more? guest: i don't know that number because that is one of the main misconceptions because the data on the unemployment rate don't come from the unemployment insurance system. now we do have an estimate on how long people have been unemployed.

so the chart shows people who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. that's about 40% right now, at its worst it was 45%. host: you can see the respegs happened here in the dark blue pped and an upward tick and it's remaining here right now. guest: well the number of people on unemployment benefits for an extended period is two and a half to three million. it's come down. people getting unemployment teeth first 26 weeks which is the standard program and there are various extended programs that go as long as 79 weeks and that adds up to about 5 million people. that has come down when it was 11 million people were getting unemployment benefits. at the ton employment benefits

were extended to 99 weeks and it was covering a large portion of the unemployed. right now about five million are getting unemployment and about 12 million are unemployed. some people have used up all their benefits, even 99 weeks. so there has been a big drop off in the people getting unemployment. @ and at the end of this year some of the extended benefits will expire. host: hello in new york. caller: they asked me what are you going to say? what do you plan on saying? and i just wanted to talk with you guys a little bit. i'm undecided and i'm actually

unemployed. you know it's hard -- host: why are you unemployed, how long have you been unemployed? caller: i've been unemployed for a good amount of time. six months now i've been unemployed. host: do you receive unemployment compensation? caller: no, i do not. and it crossed my mind. i was like let me go sign up for it and let me think if i should do that and everything. and you know it's so hard that people -- people think let me go get unemployment and this and that -- are you hearing me okay?

host: we're all listening. caller: i'm thinking about a million things. you know, actually how about you ask me something. host: i think we've got enough of your story there. anything that stuck out to you about what she had to say? guest: well, it has been a lot of long-term unemployment for people. i have talked to a lot of people who have lost jobs. one thing they face is the longer people are unemployed, the concern is it's harder for them to find work, either their skills erode or a lot of concern that employers start to worry when they see somebody has been out of work for an extended period and they worry about hiring that person. there is talk in some states

about regulating that in some way. that is a big problem that could persist as the economy grows. even as economic recovery improves, there may be some folks who lost their jobs during the recession that will have trouble finding work. host: when you hear her story, does she fit into any of the statistics we see? guest: she would. and if she's been looking for work over the last four weeks, she would be counted as unemployed. if she hadn't been looking for work over the last four weeks but wants a job and had been looking in the past year, she might fall in that category as marginly attached to the work force. and that is about 2.5 million people in that category, not 2.2. but the important thing to keep in mind is that i mentioned

earlier that these are just estimates but the surveys really are telling the story of people like her who don't have work. we all know, those of us who work, know that creates problems. that's why these statistics are important because they're reflections of what is happening to real people. host: steve in wisconsin. and we are going to move on from steve to thomas in indiana . you're on what is your job situation? caller: my job situation is wonderful. i'm very close to retirement. my wife and i only have so many months of retirement. i've been working just about

all my life. i am a baby boomer, so i've seen the ups and downs -- guest: what kind of work do you do? caller: i work for a shipping company. i work for one of the world's largest shipping companies. it was head quartered out in los angeles. we merged with this other large carrier which you all know, a merger back in 1989. so it brought me from chicago to indianapolis which is a strong republican state. and i'm a strong obama person. i work the polls in my district. i'm a democratic judge. but the state of indiana, as i say again, it went blue back in

two thorks eight, but right now i don't see that happening again. it was almost a miracle. but one thing about the romney ryan ticket, they stand behind the right to work. and those jobs for right to work are less paying jobs. they may bring more jobs to the state, but they will not bring high paying jobs. so i stand behind obama biden ticket. they have not said a lot about jobs not right to work jobs, jobs like -- he brought up the automobile industries which were strong paying jobs. host: right. thomas, we're going to leave you there. host: you've been doing this

for a long time. have you ever been contacted by an administration. in all your time there how separate is b.l.s. from the politics? guest: we've never been contacted to say we want the unemployment rate to be x or jobs to be x. they call and ask us about data. i have frequent calls with the counsel sill of economic add vase source, but i think the policy people respect the fact that the statistical agencies provide information that feeds into decision making by policy makers, by individuals and by businesses and they generally respect the need to not interfere with that because it doesn't benefit anyone if the

information that we're providing is suspect. host: how much do you use and trust the b.l.s. figures that come out nearly every week on economic mat terse? guest: we trust it pretty much. it's important to talk to economist and see what they think. we trust it because it's been coming out so long. i've heard economist say perhaps in their younger days they were suspicious but over time they've seen how the studies have been adjusted and so forth, they see it as pretty accurate and we are pretty dependant on it in terms of the snap shots it provides. the monthly jobs report is very high profile with the presidential campaign and the unemployment rate is certainly

probably the most well understood and the thing that most people understand when they think about the economy and the health of the economy. and there is a lot of data in the report beyond the unemployment rate that gives us an understanding of what is going on in the economy. host: when we look at unemployment in total private, is this the jobs report that everybody eagerly awaites how many jobs were created or how many jobs were added to the economy, is this this report? guest: that's right. that's the other headline number on our report other than the unemployment rate. this is looking at the private sector and we see there was a period where we were losing a massive number of jobs. we have been gaining some. in 201 job growth has averaged about 145,000. host: this is done on a monthly

basis. guest: yes. 140,000 in july of 2012 correct. host: are all of these charts available to anybody that goes to the website? guest: all of the data is available on the b.l.s. website. people can get the press release and the times data that we have. we have a lot of information about our methodology on the website. there is a lot of information right in the press release. host: is the fiscal cliff a valid -- is there a real chance that this could happen? guest: i think so. i mean people have different opinions on that but the fiscal cliff being the package of spending cuts and tax increases that are scheduled to go into effect the end of the year.

and there is a lot of worry among economists and business people that could throw the economy and spending cuts in defense, you've got a lot of defense contractors word rid about what is going to happen after the turn of the new year. it's anybody's guess in terms of whether congress can come together after the election but before every new person takes office. there is hope that in the november through january period that congress and the white house can come to an agreement and either postpone those spending cuts or tax increases or come to some new agreement on the budget that could replace the fiscal cliff. i think there will be a postponement of it and perhaps waiting for the new presidential and congressional elections, wait until they come in and sort it out. but depending on how the election goes, the lame duck session which will be in office

after the election might be a reason to make a deal before the new people come in. so we'll see. host: the next call is from arizona. you're a student, what are you studying? caller: i'm studying economics right now. i was -- [inaudible] unemployment dropping. a month ago, so i wondered how the printing of the 40 billion tied into the unemployment. i was wondering if you could give me your opinion on that? guest: well, it probably was a little early for qe3 that was launched in september.

and this report that came out a week and a half or last week was for september. so it was probably a little early to attribute to drop in the unemployment rate to that. over time the qe3, the goal of that will be to continue lowering interest rates and mortgage rates which are already at record lows. but if they go lower hopefully more people will buy homes and for the people that refinances it will free up more money for them to spend. and ideally businesses might be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates. there is also hope that more people will buy stocks and move out of bonds. and that will affect more americans who own stocks feel wethier and spend more. that's the plan. we'll see if it works out.

>> host: can you measure the effect of such a policy? do you measure that? guest: actually, we go to great lengths to avoid evaluation of policy. we focus on putting out the numbers. we don't want to get involved in that. we don't want to create a situation by doing policy analysis people think we're taking sides. so we let others do that. host: in illinois. caller: i'm unemployed at this point. i was working for a company that built sport boats. and we shut down every summer for a couple of months while we

wait until the new product year. and we were supposed to return back to work september 24. they called us september 15 to a meeting and they shut the plant down. host: are they transferring it to out of country or another plant? caller: they're saying they no longer want to be in the sport boat world. host: is that a canadian company? caller: yes it is host: are you collecting unemployment? caller: yes i am. we shut down in the summertime when it's really hot in may and we have a return date and we were to return to work so we weren't looking for work because we were to return to work on september 24. everybody was preparing for it.

there were other people that go out there and work in the beginning and they were working up to the day that they called this meeting and had us all meet and told us they were closing the plant. host: how many people got laid off? caller: 350. host: thank you very much. mr. nardone, is she in the unemployment figures? guest: she would have been in the unemployment figures because as i mentioned earlier the number of people who are actively seeking work, there is an aden dumb to that, people on a temporary lay off, they're counted as unemployed even if they haven't actively serged. so she would have fallen into that group and been counted as unemployed. since they're not calling her

back to work. she's collecting unemployment insurance. there say work requirement for that. so sounds like she would be counted as unemployed in our survey. host: had you heard about that story? guest: i hadn't heard about that one in particular. but it is common where people are laid off permanently as opposed to temporary. if you look at the 1980's a lot of people who lost their jobs were laid off, it was temporary and the idea was when demand return and when the economy regained health they would be called back kind of like what she was told. but more and more these days in the previous recession, you see the proportion of jobs who have lost jobs, it's a permanent lay off, the jobs aren't going to come back and people who have spent years at a certain job

with certain skills have to go find something new. host: employment of nonfarm chart it says in manufacturing there was a growth and there is a number 480 next to it. what does that mean, mr. nardone? guest: this is looking at the number of jobs added or lost since february 2010. february 2010 is when payroll employment started to go back in. host: so 480,000? guest: 480,000 jobs have been added since 2010 when overall employment started to go up again. host: and government 470,000 jobs lost. we appreciate your time this morning to talk about some of

the jobs numbers very much. >> shortly we'll go live to vice president biden in wisconsin. this will be his first appearance since last night's debate. it is starting a couple of minutes late. we will join it live when it gets started right here on c-span. >> i thought vice president biden was rude and he cut ryan off like he didn't want to hear what ryan said. i really went on vice president biden. i just see the experience, i see the sincerity in his

response. i could see his love for the people. and the other half of ryan, first of all, he need to go to the doctor because he drinks a lot of water. i thought they gave ryan more time and that's why biden had to keep interrupting. although i didn't particularly care for his smiles. i felt like paul ryan was very scripted. this is the way they've been training him. i felt like joe biden knew what he was talking about. >> joe biden came across as a crank ki old man, he was rude talking over and out of turn. very disruptive, laughing, smirking, shaking his head, pointing the finger, yulesing

an angry tone of voice. in fact, he spoke more than ryan did by ore a minute, almost two minutes more. and one fact went over the time. >> i enjoyed this debate. it was so much more substantial and the way it was handled by the moderator. i am an independent but i am going to vote for the president again and i just don't really like the way that romney and ryan are so conservive. >> i think ryan's closing statement was far support to biden's. >> biden was able to speak out more than obama was. biden wasn't allowed as long a period of time as ryan was and i suggestion that when obama comes back again, he takes his

own alarm clock to show that we can count who is talking more. >> i think it was nauseating the way that mr. biden laughed all the way through. doesn't he take anything serious? he's as inept and incompetent as obama. >> i thought ryan held his own. he was very strong in his answers. he was very calm and respectful. and by the way, who put a burr in joe biden's snickers? he was very sarcastic and angry and frustrated. >> i think there could have been more clarity on ryan's part as far as delivering -- taking a little more charge in what he was trying to implement. i mentioned before that the

biden side was a little bit more used car salesman approach. and i think he spelled out exactly how he felt about it and ryan could have done a lot better. >> kind of frustrated that they didn't let gary johnson debate. >> i thought that vice president biden he was very clear, he was concise, he was very factle and i just didn't feel that veblet with ryan. heme like he pig gi backed on everything that vice president biden biden said. >> i'm going democrat. i kept wanting the other side to give it to me and they just didn't show it. i agree he spoke out of turn at times. but that happened at the last debate. >> ryan got caught.

he got caught trying to do like a session of congress and he couldn't do that there because of the answer session. biden did his job. he needed to push whether what he said was factual or not, whether he was rude, he needed to push a lot. ryan needed to come back and he could have said i'm sorry you're not correct. excuse me, you're interrupting my time. he tried to be polite. >> as we follow the candidates on the road to the white house, watch and engage with c-span. >> can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the issues and not the mud? i think there say real need to focus on the need. >> how do you gentlemen respond? >> i agree with him. i think in general let's talk

about these issues, let's talk about the programs. but in the presidency a lot goes into it. careness goes into it. strength goes into it, that's not specific. standing up agregs, that's not specific in terms of a program. this is what a president has to do. so in principle though, i'll take your point and think we ought to discuss child care or whatever else it is. >> and you too? >> i'll take the pledge because i know the american people want to talk about issues and not tabloid journal lism. so i'll take the pledge and stay on the issues. now just for the record i don't have any spin doctors or peach writers, it probably shows. i make those charts you see on television. but you don't have to wonder if it's me talking.

what you see is what you get and if you don't like it, you got two other choices right. >> i want to say this one thing. the ideas i express are mine. i'm the only person who hasn't been part of washington in any way for the last 20 years. so i don't want the implication to be somehow everything we say is cooked up and put in our head by somebody else. i worked 12 years as a governor on real people. i'm as sick as you are. >> before 34ir78 and ryan face questions. senator john mccain and obama from 2,000 eight. at 10: 10 p.m. bill clinton and bush and ross me row. and then watch mitt romney in

their town hall debate. >> coming up we'll go live to the university of wisconsin la crosse for a campaign stop for joe biden. we'll get to hear his thoughts after last night's debate. we'll join it live. more coverage with mitt romney. he is in a rally in ohio this afternoon. he will be teamed up with paul ryan. that gets under way at 5: 40 eastern. while we wait on that to get under way we look at a briefing. >> good afternoon everyone thanks for being here.

before we start, i just thought i'd say if i might in what you could consider a personal privilege setting aside acements of winners and losers. i worked with the vice president for two years and traveled with him around the country and the world. i took extreme pleasure in watching the debate last night because of the way he demonstrated his passion and his wisdom and the joy that he brings to the job of serving the american people as vice president and of working with this president to bring about positive change for the middle class and for this country. i thought he presented a remarkably strong case for the policies that this president has put in place and the policy that is he believes are the right ones to move the country

forward. it capped off what was an extraordinary day because i had the distinct pleasure of bringing my son to the national's game yesterday. that's why i was not traveling and i have to say that was a brilliant finish to a great game. and with that i'll take your questions. >> i wanted to ask you about libya and the vice president's response yesterday in the debate. what the u.s. officials in libya had asked for more security and they were told we did not know they wanted more security again. that wasn't the testimony at the oversight hearing on wednesday. lamb conceded she had refused requests for more security. so what did the vice president mean by we, did he mean the administration, the white house?

>> he was speaking for himself and the president. he meant the white house. in over four hours of testimony the other day, no one who testified about this matter suggested that requests for additional security were made to the president or the white house. so these are issues appropriately that are handled by security professionals at the state department. and that's what he was talking about. again, if you look at the testimony, four plus hours about it, there was no discussion of requests for personnel made here. those are things that are handled by security personnel at the state department. so that, i think is very clear if you look at it in context of what the vice president was responding to. >> after that testimony he could have at least conceded -- the attack by and what has been a political attack by republicans in this case was to try to suggestion -- suggest

that the president tabbed white house was responsible for assessing security in a diplomat i can in benghazi and of course these issues are handled in the state department by security professionals and i think that's the context of that conversation >> how about a broader context, the argument given for rejected expanded security was a desire to turn over security to libyan forces. that desire could rely on forces as one has used while withdrawing from iraq in 2014. given the incident in libya, given the green on blue attacks in afghanistan, does this give you pause, does it give the president pause, does it make you reconsider whether the sole

motivation should be to withdraw troops? >> there are a variety of issue that is question touches on and let me go first to this point. as iaid the other day, there is no question that an attack on a diplomat i can fasssi in benghazi demonstrated there was not adequate security to protect those americans. that is why they took action to eastbound sure our dip plot mat i can personnel around the world were protected and why there was an accountability review board that will assess these issueleses regarding security at diplomat i can facilities. secondly, this president is very concerned about the safety and security of diplomatic

personnel around the world. one way to measure that is in the budget priorities he has put forward in his budget. and what hs done is fought every year to restore funding for diplomatic security that has been slashed by republicans, especially in the house, including congressman ryan. so i think going back to last night's debate, the lack of understanding about how this works may spline why congressman ryan supported budgets that slashed spending for diplomatic security. and in the after math he is politic sizing what should not b. this is a tragedy and an incident under investigation by the f.b.i. and diplomatic security and our facilities by the accountability review board established by secretary

clinton. more blodly i thought again this was a topic as a matter of policy that was discussed in an enlightning way in this debate, when it comes to afghanistan, president working with countless allies has established a policy to draw down our forces in afghanistan and to end that war by 2014. what you saw last night was a debate about whether or not that is wise policy and this president is committed to bringing our forces home from afghanistan. and the purpose as the vice president said of setting a deadline is to make it clear to the government in cobble as it was made clear to the government in iraq that they need to begin to take increasing responsibility for their own security. so that when it comes to

fighting and sometimes dying for the sake of afghanistan and the afghanistan people forces increasingly take on that responsibility, not american men and women. and that is why we were drawing down those forces there. the president is very committed to this. he made clear in the campaign for 2008 that he would end the war in iraq. he did. he's made clear he would refocus attention on afghanistan and refocus our attention on al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan, he has. and he has made clear this is not a war without end where we will insert american forces to do the job that should be done, once they're trained up by afghanistan force and he's happy to have that debate.

>> can you say on libya that basically the buck stops with the security department and not the white house? >> made for television phrasing nude nude >> he doesn't make those assessments is what you said? >> there are countless facilities around the world and i am saying when it comes to the number of personnel who are in place at conslats and embassies and other facilities around the world, those decisions are appropriately 345ed at the state department by security personnel. when it comes to funding, yeah this president fightes to make sure that security is adequately funded, to make sure that funding is restored when efforts are made on capitol

hill to slash it. you bet, that's the president's responsibility and he's demonstrated he's kept that responsibility. >> you're saying the president and vice president have never been breaved about the fact more security was needed in benghazi? >> what i'm saying is that matters of security personnel are appropriately discussed and decided upon at the state department by those responsible for it. obviously it is the case everyone responsible for national security in this administration and those who are knowledgeable about it in capital hill have long been aware of the fact libya is a dangerous place. >> what you are doing is saying something that was not said last night. what the vice president said

was that -- >> we weren't told they wanted more security there, never briefed that more security was needed? >> it was a four and a half hour public hearing where this issue was talked about where the very specifics of requests for security personnel were made, were ajud kated at the state department. unless you were listening to another briefing that i wasn't -- there was no i'm not going to talk to you about this. i'm saying that matters of how many personnel are assigned to embassies and con sulats in other diplomatic facilities are not decided in the white house. >> you said the president was briefed not the state department. the president was briefed about consulates and other facilities

around the world. are you also saying in that briefing the president was not told about security problems at benghazi being targeted -- >> i'm saying there was no intelligence that suggested there was be an attack that is a fact. >> this was a consulate that was targeted several times. he was not told the day before the 9/11 anniversary dch >> in advance of which this administration took action to prepare for potential acts against the united states or our allies that might take place as part of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001. what i can say is there was no actionable intelligence indicating there would be an attack at the benghazi

facility. >> what i'm asking is intelligence, i understand that distinction. you're saying the president on nine ten was not told about there being problems or concerns about it, he wasn't told about any of that? >> i cannot get into details of a classified document. he was not told. [inaudible] >> i think that is pretty clear what i'm saying and what i obviously cannot discuss is classified information. there was no actionable sbell intelligence regarding the benghazi facility. i understand the reason to turn this into an issue in the campaign. the president has been focused on finding who is responsible for those who killed four americans.

making sure our diplomatic personnel around the world. following the facts wherever they may lead and ensuring through his directive to the secretary of state actions are undertaken to find out what happened with regards to security in benghazi and what our posture ought to be moving forward at facilities around the world in places considered dangerous. >> when you dismiss it as politics, four americans were killed and she doesn't feel like the administration is getting to the bottom of this. what do you say to her? she just said i want to know what happened to my son. >> and nobody want to know more than the president of the united states. this president has made sure that the f.b.i. is investigating what happened. that is state department set up the accountability review board

to assess what happened in terms of security posture there. and that is under way. and as the secretary of state said moments ago what has always been the case we have been transparent about what we know and made clear as hours and days and weeks have passed by and more facts have come to light and more has been revealed through the investigations under way, that we have gained a clearer picture of what happened and what did not happen and we have been trance pasht about that. from the beginning, what we have seen, unfortunately because this is not our tradition, an effort by some to turn this into a partisan fight. and that's a shame when we're talking about brave men and women in our diplomatic service who serve democrats and republicans who represent the united states and the american people and america's interest abroad often in very dangerous

parts of the world and that is sometimes forgotten by many because much due attention is paid to our men and women in uniform who are in dangerous parts of the world. but we have a lot of civilian personnel in places like afghanistan and iraq and in other regions of the world where there is risk sflolved serving your country and represent pping america's interest. and the president is focused on finding who is responsible, bringing them to justice, investigating to the end what happened and taking appropriate action to ensure it does not happen again. >> still on the subject of the benghazi attack. the three state department officials and 230r78er libya security chief all testified that a request had been made

for additional security for the benghazi come consulate anded the been ignored or rejected. i want to clarify those requests never made their way to the white house? >> individual personnel at thousands of facilities around the country are not ajude kated at the white house. they are decided at the state department appropriately and the state department has to make assessments and this is all under review by the accountabilityry view board. and that process should be allowed to continue and not be prejudged. but it is certainly not the case that the assignment of security personnel at diplomatic facilities is made here at the white house nor should it be. what is the case is that the president sets his priorities in his budgets and the

president has set levels of funding for diplomatic security in his budgetses that have been slashed by republicans especially in the house. so i find it rich that charges are made about concern over diplomatic security by those who routinely slash funding for security in order to pay for tax cuts. >> i guess who knew what when? >> this is all under investigation and review. but what is obvious to anybody who understands how this works, matters question for additional security are not made to the white house, they're made to the state department which is where the appropriate security personnel assess these requests. >> the vice president comments were widely interpreted as saying the administration wasn't told, we wernt told --

>> the vice president was speaking about himself and the president and the white house. he was not referring to the administration clearly since there was a public hearing for four and a half hours where it was discussed openly by individuals working at the state department requests that were made. obviously, he was referring to -- he wasn't talking about the administration at large. he was speaking about himself and the president and the white house. >> and of course the president made a much more aggressive and extressive presentation of the administration and obama campaign views yesterday in his debate which is much better received the president in liz past debate. what if any lessons does the president take away from having watched that debate and what kind of changes in his preparation can we expect [inaudible] can we expect a different

approach? >> let me say a couple of things, questions ability campaign strategies are more preerptly addressed to my colleagues on the campaign. the president watched the debate last night. thought the vice president did an excellent job presenting this administration's case, this president's case and this vice president's case for why we need to continue to move forward, why we need to make decisions about our economic policy that allows our economy to grow from the middle out instead of from the top down and why we have taken the actions we have and need to continue to take the actions we have to enhance america's national security interests around the world. the president watched the debate on air force one flying back from florida with a number of staff who were traveling with him.

and i think he spoke to reporters afterwards and made clear that he was very pleased with the vice president's presentation last night. this is about, without getting into campaign strategy, this is about very serious issues of public policy, very serious matters about choices we make in budget priorities. and we were just talking about one of them. the president believes, as the vice president made so clear yesterday, that we cannot afford to put back in place the policies that helped prep date the worst financial crisis in our history since the great depression. we cannot afford to raise taxes on the middle class in order to

give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. we can't afford our seniors cannot afford to have their health security undermined by a system that would turn medicare, one of the greatest accomplishments for older americans in the history of this country into a voucher system that puts seniors at the mercy of insurance companies. this president will not do that. and i am confident that he will make that case when he has the opportunity to go before the american people again in a debate next week. i know that he feels the vice president made that case very well last night. >> i want to go back to libya again. in answering the question you keep referring to the process and i don't think anyone argues with the fact that the state department take it is lead in deciding security issues and so

forth. but no one is really talking about that. but the question we're trying to get at is did the vice president and did the president, were they aware of this? not that they had to make a decision about additional forces or security but were they even aware that there was a request out there? >> i think the vice president spoke to that very clearly last night that when it comes to requests for security personnel at diplomatic facilities, those requests are made to and reviewed by the appropriate security personnel at the state department. it is certainly the case, as i noted earlier, that everyone involved in national security in this building and around the administration and around washington, both on capitol hill and those of you who are familiar are with national security understand that libya is a very volatile place, that

eastern libya has been and continues to be a volatile place where there are militias and extremmists and dangerous characters and that is something that is part of our understanding about the country and the region. going to the point i tried to make to ed, i can say that there was no intelligence suggesting there would be an assault on the benghazi facility. >> we're not talking about the actionable intelligence, it's whether or not he knew there was a request? >> i think the vice president answered that question clearly last night. >> more people were probably watching the debate than the testimony in congress. the vice president could have implide that the administration didn't know there was a request, he could have been

more specific and said he personally was not aware even though testimony shows the administration did know about it? >> again the vice president certainly was aware of the testimony on the hill. everyone in this room including people who pretend otherwise were aware of testimony. [inaudible] is >> what i and others are saying in answer to your questions is designed to make clear what we know you understand but others may not which is that there are obviously more requests made as discussed in a public hearing on capitol hill the other day where those requests are routinely reviewed. nowhere in those four hours of testimony was sit uged that those requests are made or sent to the white house because that is not how this works the issue

about actionable intelligence is important because it goes to the question about what happened that night. and it, i think, answer the question ed asked about the general briefing that the president gets regularly in advance of significant dates that might potentially create risks because of potential increased active like the anniversary of 9/11 or christmas or other holidays. and that's the kind of briefing he routinely gets and we make you aware of. >> a lot of people out there conservatives certainly saw it as aggressive, would you disagree with that? >> i think he made a passionate case for why we can't stick the middle class with the bill for getting our fiscal house in

order with a $5 trillion tax cut and the vouchization of medicare. yeah, i think he was very forceful, but i think he also demonstrated a remarkable degree of precision when it comes to the wealth of experience he brings to this office, how deeply he understands both the policies that this administration has put into place and the policy proposals of the other ticket and republicans on when i will because he has lived it both as vice president and senator. he common straited his vast experience on matters of national security, foreign policy and i think rereflected that. those of you who have covered him know he is deeply rooted in his own background and his own

neighborhoods and has never lost touch with the fundamental rational blind his public service which he is here to fight for middle class americans, for people who just deserve a fair shot, for people who you cannot write off because they're senior citizens and aren't paying income taxes, you can't write off because their veterans who gave service to this country which and i thought it was forceful and compelling. >> i'll give you one example when the vice president said people making a million dollars or more will cribt>> absolutely.

our position on the bush tax cuts have not changed. the president has proposed 98 taxes do not' go up next year. we have called on the house to do the same period, all the taps to happen is for the republicans in washington to stop holding ostages.le class h he was explaining the numbers. he repeated our proposal that taxes do not go up on 97% of businesses. as you know that is the to and $50,000 threshold. he made clear that 97% of businesses do not have incomes of more than $250,000.

he was using a million dollars as an example and make clear he knew his brief because of that trillion dollars, 80% ghost household more than $1 million. , the reaction to that testimony -- >> we will leave this advent and go live to the university of wisconsin-la crosse, a campaign stop with vice president joe biden, along with his wife, jill. ♪ \ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ >> hello, everyone. it is great to be here today. and how about that kentucky debate? didn't joe do great last night? i am so proud of him. last night i saw that jo i know, somebody who truly understands what is going on in people's lives, someone with the experience to stick up for the middle class. and someone who showed us that it clear picture of the choice in this election. now it is my pleasure to turn this over to someone who has been fighting hard for the kind of america that we want to live in, someone who is not afraid to roll up his sleeves and do the

hard work to keep moving this country forward, my husband, our vice president, joe biden. >> hello, university of wisconsin. good to see you all. good to see you all. with your permission i would like to ask a guy who can throw a helluva lo-- to come back out here. i needed a passport from the congressman to get into town. i know this is his town. that me begin by thanking you. you have been waiting. you all go to the university, and you do not have to wait more than 20 minutes for a full professor. i am sorry we are a little late

getting out here. i want to recognize one of the finest guys i have ever served with in all my years in united states senate, and one of the people who is -- when you say his name in washington, here, i am sure anyone who knows him, when you say the name herb kohl, you say the name integrity. your presence is going to be missed, particularly by me. we served a long time on the same committees, and whenever i was not quite sure of what i was doing, i would pull him aside -- seriously, this man is a love of wisdom. i will miss you, herb. i am going to miss you. my name is joe biden.

i am jill biden 's husband. that is how i am known is washington -- in washington. i'm sure you observe last night we had a little bit of a debate. with a gentleman from wisconsin, congressman ryan -- [boos] no, no, no, i do not agree with anything he says, but he is a great guy and a great husband and father, and i have great respect for him. you know, anyone who watched that debate, there is no doubt that congressman ryan and i come

up governor romney and the president, we have a fundamentally different vision for america and eight different values set. the fact that the differences that we have about the future of this country are profound. they are as profound as any differences in any presidential campaign i have been involved in. i think people were listening, and if they wore, they know what some of those differences are, and they know how those differences can fundamentally affect the direction of this country. one of those areas was in the area of afghanistan. i made it clear, on behalf of the president and i that we are leaving afghanistan in 2014, period. there are no ifs, ands, and buts. we have trained hundred 15,000 afghan military personnel. it is their responsibility to

step up to their defense of their nation. we went for al qaeda, we went for bin laden, which accomplished that goal, and now it is time, and they are willing. it is time for them to stand up as we drop down. congressman ryan made it clear that governor romney has a very different view. although he said he thinks we should get out in 2014, although he said that that makes sense, he says we should never have announced that, and i might ad if we did not, the afghans would not step up, and asked if we could guarantee to get out, he said it depends. you heard it. it depends on the situation on the ground. ladies, it depends on nothing other than a date. it is time for the afghanis to take care of their own responsibilities.

like almost everything, it depends on which day you ask him the question. it depends on the circumstances. it was not just on foreign policy it depends. it was also their attitude about what constitutes a fair tax code, what is a reasonable budget, whether or not even to cut the budget. congressman ryan is saying although they passed the budget in the house which did not become law, which cut 19%, in this rating education, he said that is not a cut, it is just a smaller increase. i want to tell that all to your parents when they no longer take at $2,500 tax credit next year if they were to win. tell that to the kids who were kicked off early education. folks come on taxes, if you go

back and take a look, paul rye and saying his budget really is not a budget cut is like governor romney standing on employment lines and saying to a guy, i did not outsource your job, i off toward it. that is the distinction they make. when i point out that governor romney, a great businessman, did bain way, and outsource jobs, they said that is not what he is doing. when i pointed out that the governor and, as governor as massachusetts, sent a call service that people in massachusetts would pick up the phone and call to see whether or not they are entitled to unemployment benefits, they got

somebody in asia. they outsourced that. imagine the ideas, the feeling of a guy calling, saying, how bought my unepsilon check, knowing he could have the job that the person he is calling has. when i said that, he said biden does not understand. that is not outsourcing. that is offshoring. it's unusual distinctions my friends make these days are more than misleading. on taxes, they say you heard last night we raised taxes 99 million tons or whatever it was on middle-class people and small business. even romney admitted we have not raised taxes. we have cut taxes for the middle class by $3,600. now we want to make sure that we

make the tax cuts for the middle-class that are due to expire in january permanent, make that permanent. you know what their answer is? they say no. is literally true. this is what they said rick they said we will not make a tax cut for the middle-class permanent unless you agree, obama and biden, to extend the tax cut for the very wealthy. we're not going to let the middle class have it unless the wealthy continue. let me put this in perspective. $1 trillion causeost for the next 10 years. 800 billion of it goes to people with a minimum income of $1 million.

$500 billion goes to 120,000 families making an average of $8 million a year. while they eat this rate education, while they refuse to allow tax cuts to go forward for the middle-class. ladies and gentlemen, only a man who answers a question on "60 minutes" about two weeks ago, when asked the question, he said, the you think it is fair that you pay only 14% of your $20 million in income, when someone making $50,000 a year pays at a higher rate of the governor said yes. that is fair. if you have that point of view -- i am serious, and you understand why they are so desperate to hold on to a tax

cut the wealthy are not asking for, but they know they do not need it and they know it is time for them to chip in. that is all you need to know, though, as to why the governor wants to make sure that deahe holds up tax cuts for your parents unless you continue to fund a $500 billion tax cut for 120,000 families. yet the thing that we learned is governor romney is no longer for that tax cut that he has been talking about for a year and a half, the $5 trillion tax cut. it's evaporated. i do not know where it went pick he said that tax cut he is calling for will be fully paid for by doing away with exemptions for the very wealthy people. the one exemption, the one loophole he has made clear that

you cannot get rid of is the one that allows him to pay for %.4 when asked what other loopholes he would cut, and you heard it last night, they could not name one, not one. that is why, folks, the bipartisan group called the tax policy center made up a former -- made up of former bush and clinton economic experts, that is why they said that the romney-ryan tax plan would in fact raise taxes on middle-class families with a child an average of $2,000 a year. $2,000 a year. by the way, every model looked at, from the american enterprise, say the same thing.

folks, it is time to lift the burden of the middle class, not double down on the great recession that hit them. as a consequence of the great family, middle-class families lost $16 trillion in wealth, sleet in equity in their homes, they solve them evaporate, and their pension plans and their 401-k's. it is time for everybody to chip in, but we should not be surprised at their continued opposition to everyone chipping in pick these are the folks who talked about 47% of the american people being unwilling to take responsibility. by the way, the congressman from wisconsin in his speech to

said 37% of" americans are these takers. i do not know who these people are talking about. the people of the neighborhood i grew up in, 82% pay their taxes at an effective rate higher than romney pays his taxes, over 10% of them are senior citizens on social security. the rest are disabled veterans and military personnel fighting now. that is the 47%. the 47% this nation depends on, to build this country. folks, it is about time governor romney takes some responsibility. takes some responsibility to help the american people, the middle class, instead of lining up to sign a pledge to a guy

named grover norquist, sign a pledge -- be funny if or not so serious. they signed a pledge. the congressman can tell you. in the houseican that, sign a pledge that we will not raise taxes $1 on the wealth, and ladies and gentlemen, it is time me and ryan and the republican congress to take a pledge to the middle class people saying we are going to level the playing field, we will get you back in the game, we will give you a fair shot again. it is time with knowledge what got us into trouble in the first place. they talk about this great recession as if it dropped out of the sky. where did it come from? as my granddaughter once a, did casper the ghost do it, pop? it came from their policies of

shredding reasonable regulations on wall street, allowing banks to write their own rules, continuing a trillion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthy. that is what got us here. ladies and gentleman cannot take responsibility. if anybody had a doubt about what is at stake in this election, when it comes to women's rights, and the supreme court, i am sure they were settled last night. congressman ryan made it clear that he and governor romney, are prepared to impose their private views on everyone else. it was made clear last night that they do not believe in protecting a woman's access to health care. it was made very clear that they do not believe a woman has a right to control their own body. that is between she and her doctor. and now they say they are willing to make an exception in the case of rape and incest. ladies and gentlemen, congressman ryan was a leader in

the house and even blocked those acceptance. now these guys pledged that they are going to defund planned parenthood. after last night, if you have any doubt about the caliber and the philosophy of the justices they would appoint to the supreme court, i imagine they are pretty well pas4t. can you imagine the next president is likely to have almost one probably two supreme court appointees. roe v. wade is hanging. do you think there are to appoint justices to the court that will not join scalia and others to overrule roe v. wade? single most consequential decision a president makes other than going to war is the appointment to the supreme court, because those appointments live long after any

president is gone. ladies and gentlemen, congressman ryan voted against the lee ledbetter act. all it did was -- it sounds ridiculous, but it only gives a woman the cause of action if she finds she was she did in her employment. -- when she was cheated in her employment. we're pushing hard for a fair pay act. i happen to think my daughter should get paid exactly but any man is being paid at a job she is doing. we have proposed equal pay legislation. they are against it. they want to turn back to the insurance companies, the decision on whether a woman continues having to pay 50% more for the san health care, where

once again pregnancy will be able to be a pre-existing condition. ladies and gentlemen, they are holding hostage when of the proudest accomplishments of my career, the violence against women act. they're debating whether or not we need this after 20 years. folks, if i leave you with no other message today, want you to remember this one -- obama and biden are absolutely, positively, firmly committed to ensuring that our daughters and my granddaughter's at the exact same rights and opportunities to control their lives as my sons and my grandsons -- exact same rights. make no mistake about that. these guys have a social policy out of the 1950's.

folks, the american people have been through an awful lot the last four years as a consequence of this great recession. like always, the american people did not give up. they got up. the american people did not lose faith. they fought back. folks, there is no quit in america. there is no quit in america. there never has been. and i have never seen two candida it's the highest office in the land who are more negative about this country and its prospects than the people we are running against. all you hear from them is talk about a culture of dependency, america in decline. i do not recognize the country they talk about. i really do not. not where i come from, not where you come from. i do not see americans who think

they are dependent. c americans who are looking for nothing more than a shot. they are not looking for a handout, they are looking for a shot, a level playing field. how could these guys have such a profound misunderstanding of the people of this country? the american people are so much better, so much stronger, so much more responsible than these guys give them credit for, and i have got news for governor romney and congressman ryan -- ameritech is needed dependent nor is it in decline -- america is neither dependent nor is it in decline, and if they would get out of the way, if they would get out of the it way with these policies out of the 1950's, which would be raging back. my distinct message to congressman ryan and governor

romney, gentlemen, it is never, never, never been a good bet to bet against the american people. you always lose when you bet against the american people. folks, we need you. we need you to have as much faith as we have in the american people. we need to stand up. we need your support. we need you to help us win wisconsin, because if we win wisconsin, we win this election. god bless you, and they got to may god protect our troops. thank you. thank you. ♪

♪

♪

♪

>> we have more coverage later this afternoon when republican presidential candidate and running mate speak at a campaign rally in lancaster, ohio. that is why this afternoon at 5:40 on c-span. watch and engage with c-span as the presidential candidate's face off in the second of their three debates. the preview begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern with the town hall debates beginning at 9:00. at 10:30, the post-debate coverage and your opportunity to react as we take your calls, females, and -- emails and tweets. follow online at c-span.org. c-span is bringing you live coverage of debate between now

and november 6. tonight we will take it a california as the congressman faces the democratic challenger. it is the only televised debate for the thirty sixth congressional district. on wednesday, republican resident -- john gregg and libertarian candidate face of to be indiana's next governor. this debate is courtesy of wfyy. >> good evening, and welcome to the first gubernatorial debate for this fall season. i am dennis rierson, i will be your moderator tonight. we will answer questions of the indiana voters. for the first time, we are

going to make set up a little. in a nod to the lincoln douglas approach, the candidates will have statements they make to the others. we are broadcasting this live throughout indiana and on live with streams -- webstreams. cspan is carring this debate. we welcome the community at large. our broadcast production partners from wfyy, our affiliante organization and our volunteers for making this possible. a word about format and the rules. in keeping with the mission and tradition of putting voters first, voters will ask many of the questions either in person or through e-mail questions that i will ask on their behalf. each candidate will have one

minute to answer the questions, 30 seconds for rebuttal time. that we may have to adjust this is given the time constraints. i will be pretty particular about that. i will change gears a little bit midway through and asked the candidates to make a statement in a traditional style. you don't have to be formal, but the idea is to make a one-minute statement about your beliefs and the other two candidates can run but that statement. a first candidate will have a chance to rapid the -- wrap it up. when we get to the last one, it will be general in nature and you'll get 90 seconds to answer the question. that is the format, here are some of the rules. i will keep us on time. it is important that we do so.

if i have to respect fully stop one of you, i apologize in advance. we have spoken to the live audience and reminded them of the rules of decorum. no partisan signs, buttons, clothing, clapping, whistling, or noisemaking. we want to make sure that you have the opportunity to hear from the three men that want to serve you as governor. they can take notes but they can't bring written notes or props to the stage. the order in which they make their opening statements and make their first question. to my right is john gregg, then rupert bohnam, and mike pence, the republican candidate. it is time for your one minute opening statements.

>> this election is about jobs, education, and by partisanship. i bought the soda shop when i was 15 years old. i created my first job. i understand how to make a payroll. as a former university president, i know all the opportunities don't mean a thing unless we have a well-trained work force. i am glad i have been able to get people to work together. every single bill that landed on the governor's desk had bipartisan support. i would like to ask you to look beyond the party labels. if you're tired of gridlock, look beyond those. i am the only candidate that has balanced the budget, cut taxes, and done so in a bipartisan way.

>> thank you to the indiana debate commission for hosting this debate. thank you to all of you in the audience and everyone watching at home. i appreciate you taking the time to hear what you have to say. i have tried to empower people around me. i grew up in kokomo, indiana. back in 1991, i created my mentoring program was no city or state or federal funding. i have been running small businesses for years and putting people to work in situations that they have never been working before. i have shown people how to get themselves out of trouble. i want to stand up here as a change to what the status quo

is. >> thank you, dennis. i want to thank the indiana debate commission and all of those that are here tonight, looking from around the state of indiana for this opportunity. i am running for governor for two reasons. i love this day -- state. i grew up in columbus, indiana. along with my wife, karen. i studied american history, worked a few years ago the law school. i have been president of a think tank and started my own business in which i had the opportunity to broadcast around the state of indiana and i can represent in the at the last 12 years in my state capital.

-- and i have represented in the end of the last 12 years in the state capital. i think we can take indiana from good to great. on the campus of the high school, it is fitting that the first question deals with the theme of education. we have a skilled tradesman retiree. but please ask your question. >> looking at the historic performance on the sat and spending, the same should apply to an entire student population if that's not the case. from 1980-2007, the amount of spending per student has risen fourfold to approximately $10,000. during that time, verbal scores

remained steady and math scores gained only 20 points. with this in mind, what changes would you propose to improve the educational outcome for the state of indiana's children without additional expenditures? >> you get the first response. >> i understand as a former university president that when our students graduate from high school, they should be career or college ready. the day i am governor, i would end the war on public education and public educators. i don't think we improved education by state voting teachers and principals. and i would have those reformers sitting there that are absolutely great educators and principles, they are called multiple schools for reason.

the one thing they would do is look at a pre-kindergarten program. we are one of eight states that do nothing for prekindergarten. they are proposed early childhood development. they saved $7 in the course of that education. >> education is very important. half of our budget goes to education. but we are still struggling. when we have our teachers tied to teaching, when we are grating our students on the performance of one test instead of the progress through the year is an injustice to the teachers and the students. not everyone of us tests the same. we need to bring vocational education back to the schools.

we need to start creating an environment in our schools where the child is not on an educational path for college, they are on the path for vocational training and have a chance to have a solid life with education. we need to empower classrooms and redirect some of the dollars out of the administration in the classroom. >> thank you for the question. other than public safety, there is nothing that the state does that is more important than educating our kids. we have made great progress in a recent years. graduation rates are up, test scores are up. but we have a long way to go. 20% of our schools got a great

of -- grade of c or lower. there is nothing that can't be fixed if we give parents more choices and the teachers more freedom to teach. i agree with my competitors and say that in addition to the aspect of our road map, that called for greater emphasis on math and reading, i think the time has come when the priority for every high school in indiana again, we lay out a road map. >> thirty second rebuttals. >> any changes will have to be implemented in the classroom. the that is why we have input from the classroom teachers. i have worked for two fortune 500 companies and you cannot implement change from the top down. the best ideas don't come out

of washington d.c. or indianapolis. they come from the dinner tables. if we need to be more inclusive, listen to teachers, and expect results. >> i have to go back to sell much emphasis on standardized testing. picking the best of four answers instead of teaching them how to write the essay, life is not a multiple choice. we need to teach our children to think and learned and comprehend. if we move away from standardized testing and empower our classrooms. >> on my road map for indiana, we specifically set goals to improve math and reading schools of our elementary schools. we place greater emphasis on

math and reading. considering the possibility of a gateway expectation. laying the foundation, but i want to say again, the time has come to make sure that our college and career is ready to graduate. >> she could not be with us tonight, but she has a question about education. how do you propose to make the state college tuition more affordable for families? how did you propose to cut down on college debt and provide useful schools for when kids graduate from college? >> by making education affordable. when i see so many people coming out to me saying that they are struggling with their first year of school, there are remedial

class'es. that is costing and taking time away to go back and redo what you should have done in high school. >> we have three kids, and to our and college right now. we know a little bit about college tuition and the burden that places on families. that is why we came out with a plan to create an incentive for on-time completion in the publicly supported universities. the reality is that less than 1/3 are finishing a four-year degree in four years. we have to do better than that. we woke up today to a headline from indiana university that they are now creating an incentive program.

at the end of the sophomore year, it will freeze tuition for students with on-time completion. this is exactly the right idea. we need to give an incentive to the university and students to complete school on time. a four-year degree is more affordable than a five-year degree. >> i was stopped before my men it was done. -- minute was done. >> take 30 seconds more. >> being able to show how we can create a more affordable college, streamlining what we are doing, coming up with some new ideas. that is why i am running for governor. i want to bring some common sense and. why are we creating more class's through the internet and using

the twenty first century. we have to come up with better ways to be more cost-effective. >> i mentioned my experience as the president of a university and i did not give a tip of a hat to current governor danielle's. through the ivy texas and, the community college system, regional colleges, college is accessible. the challenges to keep it affordable. they showed me how necessity being the mother of invention, people from all 50 states have come to see that. they are thinking outside the box. building new buildings may be is not always the thing to do. it is time to have a serious

discussion about considering a freeze on tuition. we need to audit the university so we can track for the state tax dollars go. we have no way to follow them through the system. >> we are already a little over, so we may have some rebuttal later. we have with us a social worker from fissures. >> good evening. do you feel mental health services plays a role along with the educational system? >> i think there is no question that mental health services with regard to our kids and family plays a role in educational outcomes. it is one of the reasons why i think we need to continue to

promote innovation and reform in our schools. you should be proud of the fact that right now, indiana is in the lead in education reform in this country. we are starting to see the outcome of the school is improving. i think we need to continue a relentless pursuit of staying in the lead of education reform. whether it be mental health or promoting early intervention programs like the youth assistance program in hamilton county. you bring mentors and adults from private organizations that faith-based organizations. >> i would like to say something on the last one since i did not know we're going to not have a rebuttal.

the congressman's road map and rewarding students getting through college in four years is great, but it is not great for the students that are non- traditional students. not great for those that have to work full time or juggling to careers. i worked full-time and got a master's degree. many people don't have the luxury of going to school full- time. concerning mental health, i have been at the -- i can tell you that the number of people that are home less, those that can make crimes are suffering from mental health issues much higher than the general population. we have cut the money that has gone in the mental health, we have cut the money that provides counseling to students in dealing with mental issues. we need to make that a priority.

>> i have been forgotten a few times. dodge the moderator and a daytime -- >> the moderator needs a timer. >> that is what happens to a third party. [laughter] metntal health is very important to me. i started my career running my mentoring program in texas. i want to say, thank you for being a social worker and giving back to our community and helping fight for those that sometimes struggle. the mental health issues in our educational system, we have to figure out how we can create a system that puts as much emphasis on being self- sufficient and quality of life

as it does on anything else. we need help some of our hoosier population become self- sufficient. and not worry about some of the smaller details of that actually empower our mental health patients. >> rather than rebutting, let me agree a bit with what speaker gregg said earlier. i worked my way through law school, too. we were in law school together around that time. i think he makes a valid point that for non-traditional students, people that are going to school part time, we need to make it more affordable. a good place to start is to help kids finish degrees on time.

>> the whole issue of mental health that we have discussed here is just part of a growing concern that we have, and yet i brags about a surplus, but it comes from cuts. $600 million has been cut from the public schools. $200 million returned to the department of children's services. it has been from cuts, and there are people that are hurting because of these cuts. >> one of the reasons why i'm running for governor is exactly what is going on right now. i want to expose what is happening. the only way we can fix problems is by seeing where the dollars

are going. creating a scenario that will empower us. in our educational system, we have to fight for every one of us. >> we began a new segment, the modern update on the lincoln- douglas debates. if you stay true to the spirit of this i will stay out of the way and let you talk. each candidate will make a statement and the others can rebut that statement at the person making the original statement can bring things to a close. >> i love this state. i have lived here all my life and i am raising my two sons that are here tonight. i don't want to live anywhere else. as a travel the last 22 months, manufacturing, logistics, life science, and energy.

if items are going to be made in the united states, let's manufacture it here in indiana. no state competes with us and energy. we have coal, methane, natural gas, and wind. because of the agricultural business, we have the opportunity in all 92 counties. i have a plan that will create jobs by targeting tax cuts to research and development and manufacturing. as governor, i will grow our economy, improve our schools, strength in the middle class and a bipartisan way. >> it sounds like we are talking about growing our economy, bringing jobs back to indiana, making indiana strong. the best way we will bring jobs

back is creating a be fair and level playing field. we should look at how we structure tax collection and business taxes. start looking at decrease in business taxes and creating a scenario where we are the lowest in the business tax in the midwest. empowerment of our small businesses, empowerment of youth coming out of school, if we really want to make indiana stronger, what i have heard across the state is that we want to stay here and work. we have restrictions put in front of us. we have to create a scenario where when you want to go to work, there is the ability to do that. if you do not have the

education, we better start helping. if we keep filling an hour detention centers, if we keep helping the biggest of the big, eliminating the ability for a fair and level playing field, we are all going to struggle. being able to give indiana back the ability to go to work, that is what i want to do for indiana. the i want to stand up and show how we have put hundreds of people to work and how we have brought back industry to indiana, how we will empower the state and carry it into the future. >> as i have travelled around the state of indiana the last year-and-a-half, there is no question that the next governor needs to make job creation and

job one. to do that, we have laid out a road map for indiana, a several- part plan that is build first on fiscal integrity and on putting taxpayers first. and building on the foundation of education reforms. let me describe it to you. everything begins with integrity. in public life, everything begins with fiscal integrity. it should be commended for more than $2 billion in our reserves and a record budget surplus. i think we should take the first dollar of that surplus and use it to strengthen our reserves and make sure that indiana had becoming the fiscal -- we do not fall back and lose the credit

ratings we enjoy today. rather than sure the amount of money, we should return those dollars in the budget surplus to taxpayers. i am proposing an across-the- board cut in personal income tax of 10%. that will put hundreds of dollars in the pockets of average hoosier. s. it is also the most effective way to cut taxes. 90% of small businesses file as individuals. we add to that a freeze in regulation and a look back to make sure we have the most pro- business regulatory environment in the country. that is how we make indiana the state networks. >> i hear the congressman talk about his road map and i hope

the reality is that, as i have seen you as a good-looking guy riding around in that red pickup, i hope you are putting in there that you did not support the auto industry. to american companies, 125,000 jobs at stake in the state of indiana. if when it came time to loan money to the automobile industry. as a free trader, you have voted to decimate the steel industry. we are talking about a road map to create jobs but your ideology has led indiana losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. anderson indiana had 22,000 automotive jobs and today they have none. i don't know where that road map leads, it has not been for indiana workers, the bottle or the steel industry. -- auto or steel industry. >> one of my key topics,

criminal justice reform. i have worked for years keeping it safe, making sure that people that break the law are punished. and trying to empower those of us that have stumbled a little bit. when we stand a felony on a 15 or 20-year-old young man or woman, for the rest of their life, they are discriminated against in housing and employment. a felony sounds terrible. a lot of times, they were hurting themselves. we need to restructure the way we are dealing with our criminal population. and instead of spending $50,000 or more locking people up, figuring out different ways to actually bring them back to being a productive member of

society. >> i want to congratulate rupert for raising an issue of enormous consequence. i have said that education is the most important issue other than public safety. i am proud to have been endorsed by the indiana state police alliance and the indianapolis fop. i have served for many years on the judiciary committee on capitol hill. my ambition for indiana would be two-fold. i want indiana to be the worst place in america to commit a serious crime. but to your point, i want indiana to be the best place in america where after you have done your time, to get a second chance. i worked for the late julia carson on the second chance act,

legislation about creating transition programs for felons that wanted to turn over a new leaf. and with 4000 felons returning from our prisons to our capital city in indianapolis, i think we have to do better. if i have a great privilege of serving as governor, let me say that i want indiana to be the worst place in america to commit a serious crime. i want people with ill intentions to drive around this state. i also want to say that after you have done your time, i want to work with law enforcement, prosecutors, i want to bring people together in the faith- based community and community leaders all over the state to create pathways. those that made mistakes in their life to choose a better

path. >> two minutes. >> we are talking about job opportunities and i want to share the opportunities that i have talked about in advanced manufacturing, agricultural logistics', energy and life sciences. when i travel the state of indiana and i am going up to anderson or of north, and i see the wind turbines, it fascinates me. i don't only see the opportunity to create alternative energy, but to grow the economy. i ask myself why the wind turbines are made overseas, 85% of them. rather than being made at alcoa, in lafayette. it ain't no georgia pine. i wonder why it is not made out of steel from indiana and one

thehub isn't cast here or the wire didn't come from fort wayne. we can do that if we don't get distracted on issues that divide us. we make the cars in indiana, we make the ginormous diesel engines, but we have no real policy. i have done this as speaker of the house and i will bring us together in a bipartisan fashion. i am proud of my record as speaker and i am the only candidate that has experience doing that. i have cut hoosiers' taxes and i have always done so in a bipartisan way. we need to stay away from divisive issues. we may agree on basketball and

time zones, so let's leave the other issues alone. >> a minute to wrap things up. >> when we put the first time offenders or the non-violent offenders in a violent jail cell, it does nothing but create a violent prisoner. when we have someone that is hurting themselves, we put them in jail for an extended time trying to teach them how not to hurt themselves, they can get the same thing in jail. when we have somebody hurting another, back out on the streets within days, sometimes hours. i want to keep us saved by using our prisons for violent prisoners. i will create work programs for

those that are hurting themselves and empower them. it is all about our programs. >> you have a minute to introduce your topic. >> i said earlier that integrity is where everything starts. in public institutions, and fiscal integrity as everything. under the stewardship of gov. daniels, indiana has balanced budgets. when governor daniels stepped into office, there was a deficit. at the same time, there were a variety of tactics like delaying payments.

my question to my colleagues on the stage is, how will we avoid the mistakes of the past that allowed indiana to go so deep in red? how do we ensure the next administration produces honestly balanced budgets and preserves the fiscal integrity of the state of indiana. >> we have bipartisan control of government. it is essential. we have a republican house and senate and a democratic governor. i like your idea. i get kind of a kick, the congressmen and i have known each other for years. he is a fine person, but we disagree on many things. there is the candidate and the congressmen. humanist 86% of the votes. -- you missed 86% of the votes.

and you would vote governor daniels' name. mitch daniels is a friend of mine, but he shows up to work every day. he is there. you are talking about our financial situation and when you were in congress and in control, president bush was in office, you voted five times to raise the debt ceiling. you talk bipartisanship but you have always been the attack doggone people in my party. the candidates and the congressmen are two different people. you have to look beyond the rhetoric. look beyond the road map. in congress, nothing past, poor attendance record, and nothing but the lead warrior in the

attack on women. that is why i keep bringing up social issues because that is what we are going to go back to. we don't need to be focused on divisive issues or girl scouts and what kind of license plates. we need to be pulling in the and that together in a bipartisan way and taking advantage of our opportunities. >> fiscal responsibility. i want to create that in a tripartisan way with libertarians, democrats, and republicans. [laughter] showing how we work together and becoming physically responsible. pulling back the curtain and exposing what is going on in the government. showing how we are going to be fiscally responsible, let's start with some of the misplaced scholars or found money --

dollars or found money. one of the things i have seen while i have been running for governor is that there is a lot of confusion in what is going on with our dollars. one of the best ways i can see to empower our counties and give money back to all of us is to start creating a different way that we collect our taxes. stop collecting them and let the money trickle dow. n. but the counties collect the taxes and hold the money knowing where the budget will be for next year. collecting interest on next year's dollars. not having to borrow money and high interest bonds to provide services. if you want fiscal responsibility, you can't become more responsible -- or we can become more responsible.

i have watched us centralize the government over the last eight years and on paper it sounds like you should save money. it has added layers of government. i want to decentralize and put the power back in communities. when we make our county's strong, the state will be strong. >> one minute to wrap up. >> i appreciate rupert addressing my statement. [laughter] sounding you're not very much like yourself these days. i have known you for a long time. you know i had an 95% attendance record in congress and i have been named as one of the hardest working members of congress. maybe the reason why you did not answer the question about fiscal responsibility is that five of the six years you were speaker

of the house, indiana ran deficits. for five of the six years that you led the indiana state general assembly, we ran deficits. for tens of millions of dollars. talking about bipartisanship is not going to be good enough. it is about having a plan. my road map is having a fiscal responsibility first, being straight with people. thank you. >> we will get back to questions from voters. michelle is an insurance agent form anderson. >> i would like to know what your position is on the affordable care act, also known as obama care. and if they plan on implementing it as governor. please be specific.

>> the governor daniels' needs to be given complement's for inviting myself and my running mate, the insanely talented state senator to sit down with them and discuss that. he gave us 70 pages of material and i asked, well this law be repealed? he gestured and said no. obamacare is the law of the land. as a governor, you should make decisions that you would just as soon not deal with. if we start with the governors chip program, we only need add maternal health care coverage. it is a right, not a luxury. i said the hybrid way based on what we knew. because we control it. my opponent said that he believes in freedom. that is not an answer. that means the federal

government will control our decision. my plan will be a hybrid between the state and federal. >> of the affordable care act is here, it has been deemed constitutional and is coming. we can't plan on it being repealed. if we do that, we will be forced into making a decision, having a decision being made for us. i did change my position on this a little bit when i first came out months ago. i said indiana should stand up and take care of itself. of course we should take care of ourselves. the government pushing us to except many new people -- accept many new people and our plan, maybe 750,000 new people. we had better create a situation so the government has again in the game. i have a report sent to the

governor talking about our plan and our recommendations. we can't let the federal government of the hon. -- off the hook. >> obamacare must be repealed. it destroys the freedom of every hoosier by mandating whether they wanted or needed - -wnt -- want it or need it or not. it will result in an increase in the cost of health insurance premiums according to independent estimates and analysis. it has already costit has alrean indiana. i will continue to stand for electing a president and a senate and a congress that will repeal "obamacare."

whether indiana should vote to begin a state exchange is the question. i believe we should not. the idea about a hybrid exchange, the government usually partners with states like an alligator partners with a dockuck. >> mr. boneham? >> is this my 30-second or bottle? >> we are really tight. we need to have more questions. michael moody is here, a pilot from georgetown. >> good evening. do you believe convenience have a role in today's society, and beat you believe government should enact more regulations? >> unions? i am a card-carrying union

member. i have been for many years. to see the government have the ability to go into a private sector company and say how you can or cannot deal with your workers, deal with your employer, i find that a stretch of the power of our government. when you are not breaking the law, when you are running a private-sector company, you should have the right to decide how you perform your business. let the market determine whether unions are valued or not. i want to go back to remembering when we passed this right to work law in 1958? we repealed it in 1964. i would stand up and repeal the right to work law. >> no question is that unions

have made an enormous contribution to the life of our nation. my grandfather was a member of the bus drivers' union inf chicago for 40 years. critical question unions have played a critical role in enhancing the rights and safety of workers. i believe in vienna citizens have the right under the terms of their own choosing. i support the efforts by the daniels administration to make indiana a right to work state. first and foremost, because i believe in individual freedom and that people should not be required to join a union as a condition of their employment. i do not believe it will help jobs in indiana. i think right to work will be a winner for creating jobs in

indiana for years to come. >> thank you. organized labor has a very sad event role in our society. i feet right to work was wrong. i think it will lead to lower- paying jobs for everybody, and the type of jobs we attract -- i do not want poverty-level jobs in indiana. you cannot raise a job on $10, $15 an hour jobs. organized labor has a place, but it is an easy scapegoat. i have traveled the state and talked with steelworkers in the north, coal miners in the south, and the truth is they are being discriminated against, and we do

not do that. when i am governor, we will include all people. >> fenty. let's reduce our rebuttals down. >> i believe in the right to work. i believe people should be able to go to work. i have talked to many labor unions out there that are willing to open the door to that entry-level position. i do not encounter here, -- i do not have a counter here. >> i believe every indiana is and has a right. let me say in right to work states, union participation as higher than in indiana. >> do not believe for one moment

that right to work states have a higher union participation. congressman, you are sounding like yourself, say one thing, do another. you talked about how you felt about unions, but you mentioned to you support right to work. right to work is only going to bring $10, $11 an hour jobs. >> a thank you. now it is time for a final question. we will give you 90 seconds on this, and to wrap up the debate from your perspective. the question is, could you explain to voters why you feel you are the best candidate for governor? what skills and experience do you at that sets you apart from the and other candidates? mike pence? >> thank you, and let me thank the indiana to the commission for this. a wonderful opportunity.

i am a lifelong hoosier. raised my family, built a business and had the chance to serve our state. when my wife and i thought 3 the decision about entering this race, which concluded we were among the people uniquely qualified to take indiana from good to great. with that, let me say i think this is no ordinary time in the life of our state. i am running for governor because indiana is on the verge of an era of a growth and opportunity like no other, and if we produce the right leaders at every level, with right ideas, like those included in our road map for indiana, i believe indiana will take our rightful place as the leading state in the midwest and one of the fastest-growing state economies. it will take the right people,

and that is what elections are about, and that will be your choice and yours out here, but it will take the right ideas. we will continue to run a campaign of ideas, offering a positive vision and our road map for indiana for the people. i ask for your vote. >> i have had real life experience in my 50-plus years. i do not look like that old, but i have. i am the one candidate that has experience in three crucial areas. i have created jobs, starting as a young man. i have let a university. i have had experience in state government, where we did balance the budget, contrary to what you might think. we approve funding for education, and we cut taxes. we abolished the inventory tax. i have a challenge i would like

to ask everybody out there in the audience cannot particularly those who say they're independent and those who are lugar republicans, who feel the party has been taken over by the tea party experience. if you are an ideologue and see everything on the political spectrum as left or right, if you are an extremist, i am not your candidate. but to those people who see ideas that are merely good or bad, right or wrong, look beyond that party record, look beyond that party label, look beyond the rhetoric, and you will see that i am the one who would best serve in vienna as governor, and i to ask for your support to be the next governor of the state of indiana. >> esther boneham, it is a 0 -- mr. boneham, it is only fitting

that you finish. >> thank you. i stand up here not the career politician. i stand up here as that person that has put hundreds of people to work and taught them how to do them, created multiple companies, for myself and others, that are still running, has shown how we take the government out of charities and out of our entitlement systems and continued the entitlement programs. by saving dollars and saving lives. i have said for the last year and a half, almost two years of campaigning, if we want a change, we are going to have to let change. if we are happy with the status quo, then stayed with the status quo, but i do not know if we are

happy. i hear a lot of other politicians say the are doing better than our neighbors. that is good. i hear even in my mentoring programs sometime, my young men say that, but that does not mean you are doing as good as you can. you want to change, i will give us that change. i am not the career politician. i am not out to line up my own pocket. i'm not out to get paid and fortune. i'm out to empower indiana, bring common sense back, and make indiana strong. >> thank you very much, mr. boneham. we will see the three candidates a week from tonight on the campus of the university of notre dame in south bend, 7:00 on the 17th. our first debate for the u.s. senate will be on monday. >> in about a half hour, mitt romney and paul ryan told a

rally in lancaster, ohio. we will have that live at 5:40 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span is bringing you coverage of house, senate, and governor debates between now and of november 6. tonight, republican congresswoman mack bates challenger ruiz. live coverage gets underway tonight at 10:00 eastern on c- span. >> we focus on issues and not the personalities? i think there is a need if we can take a poll here, they need to focus at this point on the need. >> how do you respond? >> i agree with him. >> let's talk about these issues. let's talk about the programs, but in the presidency, a lot

goes into it. caring goes into it. that is not specific. strength, not specific. standing up against aggression, that is not specific. this is what a president has to do. in principle, i will take your point and the we should discuss child care or whatever else it is. >> and you, too? >> no hedges, no ifs, ands and buts. i know the american people want to talk about issues. i'd will take the pledge and we will stay on the issues. i did not have any spin doctors, speech writers. it probably shows. [laughter] by make those charts you see on television. you do not have to wonder if it is me talking. what you see is what you get, and if you don't like it, you

have tea the other choices. >> i am the only person up here that has not been part of washington in any way for the last 20 years. i do not want the implication to be that somehow everything we say is cooked up and put in our heads by somebody else. i worked hard for 12 years on the real problems. >> before obama and romney face questions, the first town hall from our archive, starting saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. at 8:35, george bush and al gore from 2000. at 10:10 p.m., george h. dw. bush, ross perot, and bill clinton.

>> one of the things that i hold most dear is that my father taught me to value education. he was such a tyrant about it, and he often threatened to send a back to mexico if i did not do well in school. >> was that a scary threat? >> yes, because i believed him. >> you did not want to go back to mexico? >> i wanted to make him proud, and that another thing i felt was because i begged him to bring me, i felt i owed him that, i felt that i never wanted my father to say i should not have brought you. >> reyna grande and growing up an illegal alien in los angeles, part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> reaction from swing state

voters to last night pass vice- presidential debate from today's "washington journal." host: swing state of voters only. we will begin with a call from the swing state of virginia. this is can it in mount sydney, virginia, on our mitt romney line. good morning. it was degrading watching politicians laughing and smirking at each other when they should be a working together. enough about that. i want these politicians to realize that they work for the american people, and they should reason to get their. all of them should work closely. we have different opinions, but they need to res and together to

get the job done. and i wanted to let them know they are not fooling us. i watched by then look at ryan last night and say when you cut the funding to the embassies by $300 million, i watch the house, the undersecretary of the state, if the funding was there, and she said that it was. host: your point? caller: that the american people to the right thing. host: on the independent line is

betty from florida. caller: i called a month ago. host: you are the retired nurse. caller: i will tell you what, jerry does not have a brother, but he has a son. he turned 97 this last saturday and we had a big party of 36 at one of our real fancy restaurants, do not be fooled because i was 69 and he thought i was older than he was. he is a very young person, and

he is the love of my life. host: that's terrific. what did you think of the debate. are you still undecided? caller: i voted guests today. we both voted for obama, and if you are going to think this is a funny, but my decision came with the last debate, and the reason was the minutes that mitt romney said that he was not going to cut the 1%-ers, i read all the people, and there is one thing that i have taught my children, my grandchildren, is

do not lie. that was a big lie. jerry, when we got together 12 years, he was a republican, i was an independent. each time we vote, we say, we might as well not vote because you are going to cancel my vote out. this is the first time we did not cancel each other's phone app. he came close to not being able to but because he gave up his license a year ago, and he needed to go down and get a florida i.d., and then all the sun, you got a passport. so he was able to vote.

i listened to them all. there were some things i liked on both sides, but i decided not to change horses in the middle of the stream. host: the early voting quest was there a line? caller: i floated through the mail. my daughter is here in florida. she just came in on my 80th birthday. she met a man here. she is 60, and she is now with him, and she got -- she came from michigan. she got her absentee ballot and say she'd voted. i need to tell my kids how to vote, and i said, who did you vote for? obama. i said, all right. it is a good life.

social security, every month i say thank you, god. i am not a church person. i keep my beliefs to myself. i am protestant, and lutheran, and my mother was from ireland, and she was from a catholic side, and she grew up with wonderful woman, but she had a bad spot in her heart for the catholics because she grew up during the time they were fighting so bad. here i am with a catholic, and i am lutheran and he is one in politics. it surprised me he voted for obama. people can live together, and i know they can get along.

if i have two by racial children. it is not just a beautiful world. if i die tomorrow i will die happy. host: that is betty in florida. we look for talking to you in another 30 days. next is nancy in toledo, ohio, on our obama line. caller: hi, peter. i wanted to tell you that i am going to be 72 in january. i was born handicapped. i am one of the 47%. i worked almost 30 years of my life and am now on social security. i was on social security disability. but i took responsibility for my life and worked 30 years. i raised a son who is now a

social worker. but i want to bring up some things last night about paul ryan, talking about the deficit. he voted for everything that bush -- in the bush administration. he helped make this deficit. and then he says our children are going to suffer a. why was he not thinking about that? if you go on youtube you can find tapes of president franklin delano roosevelt who tells about the republicans saying they can do this or that better. they're not point to do it better. paul ryan wants to take our social security and medicare away. he is a supporter -- his hero was ion rand, an atheist.

but now he wants to tell everybody is catholic. rand was an atheist and ryan gave out her books to all of his staff and as christmas presents to his friends and family. he is saying anything that he can say to win over hearts and minds, but he is not going to do it any better. host: that is nancy in toledo. another call from sandusky, ohio. greg is on the air. caller: i come from a republican background, so that's where my support comes from for mitt romney and paul ryan. in regard to the debate, i think paul ryan was a little bit more smooth about explaining

himself, but i believe joe biden seemed a little more believable, because it seemed he was talking about his own convictions and something he believed in, whereas ryan was explaining his ideas, if you know what i mean. i think the biggest thing is that we the people have to make these politicians accountable and not just put our hope and one man or one individual, that we have to be accountable and show them they have to be accountable to us. host: you say you are a republican by heritage. caller: by family. host: do you feel strongly toward the romney-ryan ticket? caller: i am unclear about them. they have not really gotten into depth about the things i care about. i cannot blame obama for everything. i have a long-term memory.

some people have short-term memory. i see what has happened over the past four years and past 10 years. i want them to explain more i will. support will. i would like them to tell me how they will carry out their plans. obama did that when he was coming into office, more of a surface idea. i want to know the actual steps you will take to get where you want to be. then i will be convinced that i'm on the right ticket. host: what do you do? caller: medical profession, a nurse. host: when you talk to your colleagues at the hospital in forever it is that you work, what do you hear about the health care act?

caller: it's a funny ticket, because some health-care providers think that obamacare is something that is going to give away health care. i don't feel that way. but they feel health care will be given away and more people will be using benefits and racking up big bills in the hospital and it will affect costs. that't necessarily see it way. we have already had programs for many years where individuals without income can get prorated on their health care bills based upon their income. host: that was greg in ohio on our support mitt romney line. another call from ohio, this is gainesville, independent mind, les. -- line. caller: good morning.

i'm leaning more towards obama than romney. the reason why is because when i was looking back over the last four years, the things i really noticed about the first two years of the obama administration is there were able to get the affordable care act taken care of. no matter what people think, at least they tried to address the situation of the rising health- care costs. then he was able to get the stimulus bill passed. at least, he was able to stop the economy from getting any worse. in 2010 when the republican party took control of the house, the first thing they said was they would try to do anything in their power to stop the obama administration from doing anything progressive. that is one thing that has not been addressed very much in this race, the republican backlash, to hinder our country from getting better. host: what did you think of last night's debate?

caller: they both did their job well. thus president biden did everything he could to stem the problems that have been going on and stood his ground very well. paul ryan did well for the young man that he is and the experience that he has. he would be a good candidate. host: the democratic national committee chair debbie wasserman schultz said that the vice-president biden clearly and decisively won. host: at no point tonight was ryan able to offer a

straightforward answer or specific explanation as to how he and romney's tax plan was in the but devastating to the middle class. host: the republican national committee has put out a commercial. [video clip] >> incredible.

>> you both saw that in not hold up that picture of a bomb with a red line. >> thank heavens we have these sanctions in place. they have given 20 waivers to these sanctions, and all i have to point to are the results. they are four years closer to a nuclear weapon. when we see did they come in and herod a tough situation, absolutely, but we are going in the wrong direction. ed job growth in september was slower than in august. >> the republican national committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement. host: next up on "washington journal," getting your reaction to the debate, back. ohio.

your opinion of last night? caller: last night was awesome. i think vice president joe biden did an awesome job. last week when the debate was with the president of the united states, president barack obama and governor mitt romney, mitt romney was very rude. he was rude to the president. he was rude to america. i am one of the 47%. i am 55 years old. i started working when i was 16. i got disabled eight years ago. when i was on disability, when i found out he could try to work, i tried to work for myers department store. unless the four days. my knees gave all on me. i used to be a mortgage broker.

i tried to stand to be a cashier. it was awful. i felt awful. i felt like i could not contribute to my income. i could not contribute to help as a grandmother with my grandchildren, and to consider by a republican that i am a moocher, someone that wants to take advantage of the system, it is appalling. host: beth do you think president obama should have brought up the 47% issue at his debate? caller: yes, he should have, but he did not, and it is over. as far as the grinning and laughing, i feel the democrats are darned if they do, darned if they do not. mitt romney did the grinning. he cut people off.

the person who was the in the -- when they debated, you know? he was very rude to the one moderator. he was rude to him. now they are beating up on joe biden because he was upfront, open and honest. host: beth, if you could hang on, i want to get another ohio caller, ronald in columbus on the support mitt romney line. ronald, good morning. what is your reaction? caller: i would like to say the lady on the line has a strong

point because he was grinning also, and they tried to make it such a big issue about one doing something and the other one not. i would like to say day are not being exact with what they are -- and they are not being exactly what they are saying. i believe they are flying with everything they are saying. host: who is lying? caller: once they get in, they will switch everything around. host: who are you supporting for president right now? caller: i am in the middle. i am not sure, because nobody wants to give a definite answer. is this kind of hard when you have one question and they give you the answer to something else or answer with a question.

host: that was ronald and beth, both from ohio, and up next is alexis on the independent line. caller: yes, i have been registered as an independent for a long time. host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: i voted for president obama in 2008 and i will definitely vote for him again. host: why? caller: just like people have said, and others want to ignore the fact that when he took office the mud slide was in process. as we all know, you cannot stop a mud hole to a mud slide, with

a bucket. -- hole -- a mudslide, with a bucket. he did what he could, but it might take eight years for it to actually stop and try to rebuild, or maybe the mud slide will solidify with everything he puts forth. if it is not him, it has to be a consensus. it has to be an effort by both sides of the aisle. the way the republicans have from the beginning -- you know, there were statements made. they said they were going to block obama's every move no matter what. well, they should not be in office. that does not represent the people, the american people that

want their lives to be better. it has been so hard to make from paycheck-to-paycheck. i am a single mother with twins. i am 64. i have 21 years on my daughters. i am so happy i can keep them on my insurance. when has a pre-existing condition. that was my greatest fear, that when she turned 21, i could not help her anymore. that is a huge problem for me that he and his administration alleviated. i am 64. i am close to retirement. no, they're not going to interfere with mine, but there

is a lot right behind me that are going to suffer if the republicans get their way to privatize and gut. host: is north carolina still a swing state? do you see a lot of commercials? caller: yes, sir, but the only reason i do not is because i watch a lot of c-span and pbs. the commercial stations are frightening. host: thank you for your time this morning. we appreciate it. if you watched the debate last night or watched it at c- span.org, you watched the spin room, which we always error in its entirety, where everybody goes to say why their candidate was the best or not. david axelrod and epilepsy -- ed gillespie were in the spin room talking about their candidate. [video clip]

>> he ran from every question no matter how hard the moderator and the vice president pushed. he ran away from the $2 trillion plan, could not explain their medicare plan, and the fact that it planned to raise expenses on senior citizens over time. he criticized the stimulus plan and recovery act that was instrumental in stopping the free-fall the economy was in when the president's came in, and was sheepish when the vice president said congressman ryan had written letters asking for money from that program because he said it would help the wisconsin economy and create

jobs in wisconsin. i thought congressman ryan was on the run from the start. the one thing he did say is they will not make a commitment to leave afghanistan in 2014. that he did make clear. it was one of the only things he made clear tonight. i thought it was a decisive victory. >> again, i think paul ryan was very much in command. he did not hear his voice rising in frustration, where that kind of thing. i think voters saw a very clear contrast, not only in style, but in substance. the fact is when you look at what paul said that the end, if the president is reelected, 20 million americans might lose health insurance, and according to the congressional budget office, 7.5 million americans will be effected with medicare.

we will continue to have a chronically high on employment rate and a deficit for as far as the eye can see. it is a clear contrast from the ann romney/ryan budget. -- from the ann romney/ryan budget. and all of these issues, it is a pretty clear choice. host: donna says from twitter, the democrats think biden won, the republicans think brian won, what a surprise. from "the washington post" --

at times, mr. joe biden struck us as condescending. >> that is the "washington post " leading editorial. the next call comes from ed in cleveland, ohio. caller: this is ted. i am a supporter of mitt romney. what i would like to say is what i watched last night several times joe biden had to interrupt him left and right, and that seems condescending.

when joe biden said "finding what i say," i would like to heard paul ryan say does that mean you meant when you stood in front of people "i want to put you all in chains." that is it. thank you for c-span. host: another call from all file this morning. deborah. -- call from ohio this morning. deborah. caller: i am definitely an obama supporter. it comes down to planned parenthood. when i was 20 i found myself single and pregnant, and i went to planned parenthood, and they helped me figure out a bird plan, how to get a car seat, a gynecologist birth plan, how to get a car seat, which it birth

plan, a gynecologist -- birth plan, a gynecologist, a car seat, and now my baby is in her third year of college. i had no health insurance. i have no idea what to do with a baby. i was a very young 20. they helped me become a responsible parent, and i think other women should have that option. they do more than provide abortion. when it comes to that issue, there is no way i could ever vote for mitt romney or paul ryan. host: what did you hear in the debate last night that you like, deborah? caller: i think i am fearful of a romney presidency. they do not sound like the big,

bad ogres in all of the commercials. ryan sounds reasonable, but i do not like his ideas. when you listen to the political commercials, they sound like the most terrifying people in the world. we are made to think the world is going to end if either one of these people become president. i do not think it is going to be that bad. i think what ryan said in the end is it comes down to the kind of country you wanted to be, but i do not like the romney/paul ryan vision. host: when you turn on the television in cincinnati, it is a wall-to-wall political commercials? caller: it is. i tried to watch c-span and pbs, and even "keeping up with -- just to get away with -- from

the political commercials. host: it what you do in cincinnati? caller: i work with the graphic designer. that is another reason. ohio is and at work state, which means they could fire you unless you are a protected status. i gave my current job a two- week notice because i am moving to a higher position, and they drop you like a bad habit. i worked hard. i want people to have to fire people for cause, not just pack up and move or drop people like a dirty dishrag.

it hurt, but i am going on to better things, and that is why i called you because i have the next week off. host: let's get another ohio caller on the line. joining our conversation is sarah, a mitt romney supporter in canton, ohio. what did you think of the debate. caller: it was interesting. i would like to start by saying good morning. the caller that is in the conversation, like her, i think the commercials are ridiculous. i think that it is sad because a lot of people -- that is as far as their support will go, what they see going back and forth on the television. i think if more people would

look to the issues and read it on the issues, people would see things in a different light. host: sarah, why are you supporting the romney/ryan ticket? caller: i believe in their plan for small business. i am a stay-at-home mom, but the small business issue affects my husband a great deal. in the last four years, with his intern's alone we have seen drastic changes with copays going from $75 to $100. it is drastic and it is frightening. i think the obama administration had their four years. i think it is time to get somebody else in there for a different four-year term. host: debra, what do you think about that from cincinnati? caller: i would have to ask the

question, it is that president obama's fault? is the issue with the co pay president obama's fault, or is it with insurance companies that are doing everything they can to prevent from keeping people's cost low? i think that is a problem president obama is trying to solve, and i think he has done a pretty good job providing better health care. if we had the public option, her husband would not have to worry about providing health insurance for the people. that is something that will be taken care of in a different matter and would not be such a big difference -- expense. caller: not to interrupt you, but my husband was laid off for a short time. when my daughter had to receive

a vaccination for being a premature baby, i was flat out told by my pediatrician, if you still have your insurance, we could give your daughter a vaccine right now. since your husband is laid off, and you are with federal-funded care, we cannot give your daughter her shot right now. so, i think if a lot of people open their highest to the fact that -- their eyes to the fact that public health care what hinder us. have you looked into canada's health plan? what they are projecting is similar to what canada deals with right now, and the care that we would receive would not be as good if all of us received the same care.

it would be overwhelming and create a very large debt. caller: that is not true. i have a friend of mine who lives in canada. her third child was born with seizures. everything was taken care of. everything from his medicine to his therapy, to home care. they have that taken care of. the only thing they had to pay for was parking at the hospital. yes, she says she pays higher in texas, but it is worth it because the onus of their child did not bankrupt their -- the illness of their child did not bankrupt their family. we are not the freest country in the world that people can be indebted by medical debt. it is positively barbaric to ask people to beg for health care. i think what president obama is proposing would actually help

you. i cannot imagine -- i had my daughter on medicaid, and she did not go without any of her shots or her health care. she is a healthy kid today. they helped her with her asthma care. i do not know why your daughter was not able to get her vaccination. i would really like to know, but i think what president obama is proposing would prevent that from happening to you. host: serra in canton, last word. caller: it has been nice to talk to you, but at the same time i'm very happy i have private insurance because my family receives the care that i think i deserve. on that note, with what romney is proposing, it will give our states -- do you not think people that work around you are more qualified to make a decision than someone in washington who does not see how

they could help you as an individual? host: we will leave it there. that is deborah and sarah. we appreciate your time on "washington journal." we will take this call from nevada on our support president obama line. what did you think of last night's debate? caller: i am here in nevada. i am 25 years old. obama-care has done a lot for me, just the fact that my parents can keep me on their medical insurance, it is a big help for me. i was so worried about going out there alone and not having that medical insurance, what am i going to do?

what if i get sick? emergency rooms are filled these days, and not only that, any doctor you go to, they ask you if you have medical insurance, and that was one of my biggest worry is. i do not think obama-care is that bad. if you think about it helping people go on to their future. host: what are you studying? caller: i am going to become a lawyer. i still have a little ways to go. host: good luck to you. >> in a few minutes we will go to ohio. we are waiting for mitt from 8 to address the crowd. while we wait, here is reaction

we heard from undecided voters who turned into last night's vice-presidential debate. host: "sharp jabs dominate combative vp today." mr. biden often smirked and rolled his eyes, and mr. ryan spoke and laughed at st.. mr. ryan was more earnest and polite, taking a sip of water between answers, listening to mr. biden, who he called joe. a little take from the analysis in carolco." and decided -- analysis from the journal co -- "the wall street

journal." caller: i decided after last night -- i listened to congressman ryan. he is not a leader. he is a follower. he said a lot of ignorant things. he did not answer any questions. he stumbled over a lot of his words. , askings on pointpointm questions. yet people going bare feet and wal-mart, and this man is trying to help -- host: will leave your comment there, and we will go to j

ohn in new hampshire. why are you undecided? caller: ossapeak. i have not heard in the clear plan from either side. i may laid off executive, trying to find a job like what i was doing before, even beyond that, maybe even about a different career. i am not hearing any clarity. i am hearing name calling. it seems to be -- and my fear is we will end up with another four

years of a stalemate, with not being -- with nothing being done for the country. it is a shame. i am not blaming obama for it. both parties are to blame, but i think the bottom line is i have not heard either party come up with a solution on how to fix thatnumber two, what are we goio do going forward in the future? i am frustrated and discussed it. >> -- host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: mccain. host: we have dennis from ohio. birthplace of neil armstrong. wire u.n. decided this morning? caller: -- why are you undecided

this monring? -- morning? did this help to bring some clarity to you? caller: no. the vice president kept interrupting his coworker. he laughed a lot. i don't know if he thought the issues were funny. as far as the president and his running mate, obama said he has created a lot of jobs so the unemployment goes down, but he does not say whether that was manufacturing jobs, flipping hamburgers someplace, and and his cohort says if he gets elected, he will create 12,000 new jobs right away. well, are they in manufacturing?

are they going to make government bigger than it is? neither party is clear on anything as far as i am concerned. as far as foreign policy, every time a foreign country sneezes, the united states has to run over to wipe their nose. we have spent millions of dollars over there in wars we are not going to win. i cannot see staying over there and getting our soldiers killed for nothing. that is what i think of the their party. host: that is dennis in ohio, still undecided. leonard is from new mexico. still undecided. good morning to you. are you with us? last chance? we will move to vegas.

dennis is in vegas. why are you undecided? what issues are important to you? caller: i am 31 years old. i voted for bush, bush, and john mccain. i'm a registered republican and all of that. first off, right now, the status quo with president obama is not quite going as what he said he was going to do. he has done a few good things. if we keep the status quo, i don't see things getting any better. with romney, his views are so different that if we do switchover to another president, could it get worse or could it get better? it is definitely a gamble as to which person to pick. what bothers me is that, in our great country, is this the best two candidates that we can possibly pick to become the

commander in chief of the greatest nation in the world? why we cannottand get anything bipartisan and get things solved. it just drives me crazy. i also work in health care as a nurse. the chaos between doctors and nurses and everything that is going on, and people not knowing what they are going to do, has caused a big stir-up. it is a catch-22. it is either going to get better or it is going to get worse. it does not matter who is president. that is what keeps me in the middle. host: so, did last night's debate help you find clarity? caller: with the vice president candidates, with the vice president, the debate last

night, you know, i could not see either one of those gentlemen becoming a commander in chief. think about any other president. could you see any one of those gentlemen becoming the president of the united states? that is what scares me the most. first off, the commander in chief. you're the president of the largest, best economy in the world, the best military, the best country, and if something were to happen to a president, were one of these guys going to be able to step up and do the job? i don't think either could do it. no matter what's it -- what they sit back and forth to each other, it really is inconsiderate. irrelevant, sorry. host: there is another presidential debate coming up tuesday. there's a headline this morning, "obama heads to virginia."

the president is heading down to williamsburg, virginia, and mitt romney is heading home to boston to do their prep work for the tuesday night debate. that debate will be at hofstra university on long island. it will begin at 9:00 p.m. hour preview program will begin at 7:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span and c-span.org and c- span radio. as we have done throughout the campaign season, we will get your reaction after the debate late into the night. for those on the west coast, if you tune in, you noticed we were lively and last night taking your calls and getting your reaction as well. we will continue to do that. then the next morning on "washington journal," we will give the reaction. by the way, you missed any of last night's debate, if you want to send something on last

night's debate to your colleagues or friends, c- span.org, hit our debate hub. you can take any of the debate, you can click it, and you can send it out via e-mail very easily. you can watch the entire debate. the, what the first presidential debate. you can watch archival debates. it is all available at c- span.org. on the nights of the debate, it is like a dashboard for video. you can watch the prep work going on live at the college it is being held at. you can watch the debate. we have several different cameras going all of the same time and you will be able to watch all that on the night of the debate. now you can watch it as tape, online. c-span.org. hit the debate hub. watch debates from this season

and from past seasons. all right. st. lucie, florida scott, what are the issues that are important to you and why are you undecided? caller: basically, the top issues that are out there such as social security, medicare, and defense. social security, you will notice they both talked about social security. the other one is going to cancel it. the other one is going to ruin it. that is all you hear from each other. each party make sure they make their statement that they will not council social security. each one is going to attack the other about canceling it. it blew my mind. it is hard to think what they're doing. social security -- social security has to be saved. it is how we go about saving it. will we give up the money now and not be able to make the

interest to make more money for social security to keep it alive? who is going to keep it alive and have the best program to keep it running on social security and medicare? it seems like scare tactics. social security and medicare, you need to have each one. esol/security and medicare. they both keep saying -- social security and medicare, you need to have each one. social security and medicare. as far as defense, they said a lot of "ave," -- "they," and ryan saying "we, we, we." i would like to see both parties get to get there. that is why i am up in the air. host: he mentioned medicare. that was one of the debate topics last night appeared >> medicare and social security going bankrupt, these are

indisputable facts. when i look at these programs, we have all had tragedies in our lives. i think about what they have done for my own family. my mom and i had my grandmother moved in with us. medicare was there for her, just like it is their right now. after my dad died, my mom and i got social security survivors' benefits. helped her go back to college in her 50's. she started a new business because of the spill -- skill she got. we will honor this promise. the best way to do it is reformate for my generation. if you reform these programs for my generation, you can guarantee they don't change for the people near retirement, which is what mitt romney and i are proposing. they have not put a credible solution on the table. he will tell you about voters. he will say all these things to try and scare people. here is what we are saying. give younger people when they

become medicare-eligible guaranteed coverage options that you cannot be denied, including traditional medicare. choose your plan and medicare subsidizes your premiums. not as much for the wealthy people. more coverage for middle-income people and total coverage for the poor and the sick. choice and competition. we would rather have 50 million futures seniors determine how the care is delivered to them rather than having 15 bureaucrats. >> let's talk about medicare. we saved $716 billion and put it back and applied it to medicare. we cut costs of medicare. we stopped overpaying insurance companies when doctors and hospitals -- ama and aarp endorsed what we did. it extends the life of medicare to 2024. they want to like this out. also give more benefits. any senior out there, ask yourself, do you have more benefits today? you do.

you have $600 more. you get wellness' visits without copays. they wipe all of this out and medicare becomes insolvent in 2016. no one appeared number two, guaranteed benefits. it is a voucher. when they first proposed -- and the congressman had the first program, cbo said it would cost $6,400 a year, martha, more for every senior 55 and below when they got there. he knew that, yet he got all his guys in congress to vote for it. governor romney said, i would sign it. "do you believe? teh ama, me, -- the ama, me, a guy who has fought his life for this, or a man who put in plan that added to the cost of medicare? now they have a new plan.

trust me. it is not going to cost you any more. follow your instincts on this one. host: here is the front page of the "washington times." >> we take you live now. mitt romney and his running mate paul ryan arriving to rally supporters at lancaster town square in lancaster, ohio. a live coverage here on c-span. [no audio] ♪ [cheers and applause] >> are you ready to win?

we have to win, don't we? it is too important to our families, to our communities, to our country. we cannot afford another four years of barack obama. now, we all want to win, and we have to win. let me ask you something today. are you planning to do everything you possibly can in the next 25 days to ensure a victory here in the key state of ohio? [cheers] are you willing to make phone calls for mitt? are you willing to go door to door for mitt? are you willing to put up one of these signs in your yard for mitt? i need you to early vote. we need to bank the vote appeared go to your board of elections on monday morning. you can vote and vote now. that ensures you'll have plenty of time on election day to help

us get other people to vote. will you do that? [cheers] when you talk to people, friends, neighbors, folks to go to work with, folks to go to church with, you will find they are paying attention. we had two great debates in the last eight days. do you agree with me on that? [cheers] wow. the american people are seeing what this comeback team is all about. last night, we had a terrific performance by paul ryan. [cheers] folks, on the stage last night, who was the leader? it was paul ryan. cheers] jobe biden said a lot of interesting things. one was, in a time of increasing danger around the world, he said we ought to be cutting our military.

[boos] he said we don't need any more m1 tanks. did you hear that? guess where they were made, folks? right here in the state of ohio. they are part of the great is military on the face of the earth. they will insure we have a military second to none so we can keep the peace. we need 1m tanks. say it ain't so, joe. now, we also saw on the stage last night a guy who understands how to get america back on track. just as mitt romney did last week, he explained why it was so important for us to have a change in direction and he laid out a specific agenda to move america forward. the comeback team is here and we need them and we need them now. please help me welcome the next vice-president of the united states, paul ryan. [cheers and applause] >> wow.

thank you, buddy. man. way up there. how you doing? look at that. wow. oh. i love that. it is so fun. it is great to be back here. i saw -- i spent four great years in miami vill, ohio -- miamiville, oh, and i have my lucky buckeye with me. it said it brought him a victory in ohio and you will help us because this but i will bring as a victory in ohio -- this buckeye will bring us victory in ohio. you have a huge choice to make. we have a big choice to make.

you know, i think we saw a sign of it last night just like we saw at a week ago. you see, they are offering no new ideas. the president is simply saying more of the same. hope and change has become the attack and blame. when he was running for president four years ago, barack obama gave a huge speech in this big, a great speech he said, if you don't have fresh ideas, then use a stale tactic to scare voters. if you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as somebody people should run from. you make a big election about small things. ladies and gentleman, that is what barack obama said of his

opponent four years ago. that is exactly what barack obama has become now as president. [cheers] you know, we had a chat about libya and benghazi. we mourned the loss of these brave americans. talking about blaming, first, they blame a youtube video and a nonexistent riot, then when the country is getting upset about it, they blame rind -- romney and ryan. they keep changing their story. this is not what leadership looks like. we need clarity, not confusion. we need accountability and no more excuses. this tragedy would be troubling in and of itself, but

unfortunately, what we are witnessing when we turn on our tv is on a daily basis is the unraveling of the obama form policy. when you say, it is ok to impose these devastating cuts on our military, or, that we don't need any more lima-built m1 tanks, we are projecting weakness. our enemies are more brazen. the our allies are less willing to trust us. so while hot spots are growing abroad, the economy is not growing here at home. that is the problem we have to focus on here. you see, the economy is growing slower than it grew last year. last year it grew slower than the year before. all president obama has offered as more of the same. we have a very big choice to make. that choice is clear. do we want more stagnation that

fosters dependency or do we want a dynamic, growing economy that creates opportunity and creates jobs? [cheers and applause] in a nutshell, we need leadership. [cheers] look at the guy over my shoulder right here. if you look at this man's life story, one word comes to mind. leader. this is a man who turned around the olympics, who turned around struggling businesses, and by the way, being successful in business, that is a good thing. there is nothing wrong with that. we want more people to be successful. we want more people to have prosperity, to have jobs, to have hired take-will pay. we want people to grow.

in a jobs crisis, wouldn't it be nice to have a job-creator in the white house? this is a man who has proven to get things done. when he was governor of massachusetts, he cut taxes 19 times, he balance the budget without raising taxes. unemployment went down, household income went up. this is a man that knows how to turn things around. after getting the runaround for four years, don't you think it is time for america to have a turnaround [cheers] we will not duck these tough issues facing our country. if we don't tackle america's problems, they will tackle us. we will not spend the next four years blaming other people. we will take responsibility and get the job done. we will not try to transform this country into something it was never intended to be.

we will reapply our founding principles and make america what it was meant to be. that land of opportunity, that land of freedom and liberty. [cheers and applause] the moment is coming. it is less than a month away. we have a real leader, a perfect person where the man and the moment our meeting perfectly well. that means right here, right here in ohio, you have the ability and the responsibility and the opportunity to save this country, to get it back on the right track, and you are going to do that by electing this man, mitt romney, the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> thank you.

thank you, sir. thank you. what a welcome. thank you. thank you. thank you for your senators. thank you for this great vice- president. he is going to be terrific, isn't he? it is good to be back. you may say, i don't remember seeing you here before. i was here a long time ago. as a matter of fact, my very first assignment at my first job was to come to lancaster. i'm serious. trying to do a little bit of work at a company called anchor hocking. we used to fly into columbus and then drive an hour and a half or so here. i learned something about

standing next to those big glass furnaces. got real hot in there. i learned about the machines and saw an extraordinary community that came together to build a great enterprise. it is good to be back. this is our comeback team here. this is our comeback team here in ohio. we are going to bring back america. i had the fun of going back and forth across ohio and this week, i was also in florida, and iowa, i was in north carolina and virginia, and you know what? there is a growing crescendo of enthusiasm. people recognize this is not an ordinary campaign. this is a critical time for the country. there is more energy and passion. people are getting behind this campaign. let's get this country strong again. [cheers and applause] part of that, i think, came from last night. gosh, we got to watch this guy

debate. there was one person on the stage with thoughtfulness, who is respectful, who was steady and poised. there was one person on the stage you would want to be with if there was a crisis and it is this man right here. when the moderator asked how you get the economy going, one person on the stage just attacked. this guy stood up, well, he was sitting down, i guess, metaphorically, he stood up and he went through all the things you do to get this economy going. it is our plan to get this economy going with more jobs for the middle class and more take- home pay. we will put in place that plan. [cheers and applause] now, i also had a debate about a week ago. [cheers and applause]

i enjoyed that experience. we got a chance to talk about some differences between us. i got to ask the president some questions a lot of people have wanted to ask mike, why were 23 million americans struggling to find work when he took office, why instead of focusing on getting jobs, he focused on obamacare? i got to ask them, how come gasoline is so expensive? almost twice as much as when he took office. he cut in half the number of permits for drilling on federal lands and federal waters. i got to ask why it was when he called the massive deficit we have on american, -- unamerican, why, when that was the case, he spent $90 billion sending money to green energy companies, many of blum wrote by friends of his,

contributors of is, and we heard what he had to say or not say. i think we boil it down to this. he said more recently, look, you cannot change washington from the inside. you have to change it from the onset. we will give him that chance. [cheers and applause] now, there were couple of places where we agreed. we agreed that we would take this country in very different directions. he points out that, actually, it was the vice president a part of the truth, they're planning on raising taxes by $1 trillion, more like $2 trillion with obamacare taxes, but the spending and the interest on the debt they amassed by virtue of their spending will do what one recent study shows, causing them to raise taxes on the middle class. i make this commitment to you. under no circumstances will i

raise taxes on the middle class of america. [cheers and applause] under his watch, we will have obamacare installed. your care @ -- bureaucrats can tell you what kind of health care you connect your premiums will be $2,500 more expensive. the president tells you all these three things you are getting. they come with a $2,500 extra charge. what i am going to do is repeal obamacare and replace it was something that actually works for the american people. [cheers and applause] and i hope that you will listen carefully to our debates, because the president is pointing out they are cutting

$716 billion from current medicare beneficiaries. under our team, we will honor the promises made to our seniors. and one more thing, the senator has in his budget cutting the military by hundreds of billions -- the president has that, not the senator. in addition, there was the sequester idea, they will cut about a trillion dollars of the military. the secretary of defense said those cuts would be devastating to america. to the military, the national security. i will not make those cuts. i will not cut our military. i will keep its second to none in the world. [cheers and applause] and when it came to jobs, both last night with president biden and in my debate with president obama, they did not have a plan

for creating jobs for middle income americans. they say they care about middle income americans, and believe they do, but they don't want to do. they say we will have another stimulus. how did the last one work out? and then it will hire more government workers. there is nothing wrong with government workers, but that will knock the economy going. and then they have plans to make investments, they say. a friend of mine said that they don't want to pick winners and losers, they just pick losers. and then they want to raise taxes. i don't think anyone believes raising taxes creates more jobs. they just don't understand what it takes to get this economy going, and we have a plan. five key elements. paul spoke about them last night. number one, we are taking full advantage of our oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewables. we will take advantage of our energy, and that will protect

and grow energy, jobs, and also manufacturing. there are a lot of manufacturing jobs, including in the glass industry, that use a lot of energy. when energy is less expensive, jobs come back. under president obama, we have lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs. we want to bring jobs back to america. that is number one. number two, we're going to make trade work for us. we will open up more markets for our goods. but if people cheat like china has cheated, we will stop it. no. 3, when training programs that help our people have the skills they need to succeed and i want our school to be giving our kids the kind of education they need for the jobs of tomorrow. that means we have to put our could first and parents first and teachers first -- we have to put our kids first and parents first and teachers first. [cheers and applause] number 4,

you will not get business people to risk their life savings to start a small business or big companies to come to america, built a big factory, hire americans if they think we are on the road to greece. if we keep spending more than we taken, that is where we're heading. we will cap federal spending and get us back on track to a balanced budget. [cheers and applause] number 5, number 5 is this -- we are going to champion small business. we're going to help small business people build their businesses. to do that, we will keep their taxes down and get regulations to encourage growth and take that big cloud of obama care of small business. we're going to help small business in america. [cheers and applause] we do those five things and 12 million jobs grow in america and take home pay starts going up

again. do you realize under president obama every year, not just his first year, every year the median income in america keeps going down, down, down. the middle class in america is getting crushed, squeeze, because the income is down. at the same time, gasoline prices are up, food prices are up, health insurance premiums are up. it is tough being middle-class even if you have a job in america. we're going to work to create more jobs and more take-home pay. that is our passion. that is why we are in this race. we need a strong america so we can provide for our families and the future of this great country. [cheers and applause] and i want you to know, i am confident that we are going to overcome the challenges we have. i have seen the heart of the american people through my life. i know something about the character of those who have great qualities of the human spirit in their heart.

we stood up, regardless of the challenges america has faced, we have been there and overcome them. i am reminded of a couple of experiences. one was at the republican convention a few months ago. i met jane hornton there. her husband, a sharpshooter in afghanistan. she is packing a birthday box for him in afghanistan and a knock came on the door to inform her that he had been killed in afghanistan. instead of becoming despondent and depressed, she has decided to devote herself to families of those who have lost others in conflict. on the day of her husband's funeral, some of those misguided souls came there to protest the funeral. she was asked, what do you think of these people? she said this, "chris died for them to be able to protest." isn't that an amazing american

spirit, amazing woman? [applause] and women inen and uniform uniform. o beautiful, for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved it, and immersing more than life. that will are veterans of the armed services please raise your hand so we can recognize you? thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. let me mention another experience i had. that was some years ago. i was working with the boy scouts of america at the time, and it was at a court of honor. for those who don't know what that is, that is where the boys got to get their eagle words or

other rewards. alcoa was set up in the gymnasium. i was seated at the table and there was a fly ball with the flag next to me. the person who was speaking with the boy scout scoutmaster from monument, colorado. he said his boy scout troop wanted to have a very special american flag. they bought one. they have one above the state capitol and had it flown above the national capital in washington, d.c. when it came home, they said let's have it go up on the space shuttle. if they contacted nasa and ask them to dig the flag of the space shuttle. i am sure they told them that space is a premium. not a lot of room for souvenirs on the space shuttle, but they took the flag. he said, you cannot imagine how proud our boys were from their school rooms to watch the shuttle go up into the sky on tv, and then they saw it explode in front of their rise. the scoutmaster called nasa a couple weeks later.

the said did you find a remnant of our flag? they said, no. he said he called every week, several months, called and called, nothing. then in september, he said he was reading a newspaper some of the debris found from the challenger disaster, and they mentioned something about a flag. he called and said, did you find our flag? they said, as a matter of fact -- they got together. nasa came together with the boy scout troop and presented the boys with this plastic box. they opened it, and there was their flag in perfect condition. and then he said this. he said, have that said on the flagpole at next to mr. romney on on the table. i got the flag and it was like electricity ran through my arm. for me, that flag represented the men and women who put themselves in harm's way, in our space program, in our military.

those who reach for learning, who live for something bigger than himself, who look for discovery, to put themselves out there. it reminds me of the people when they graduate from college or high school who say, i am going to put aside my career for a while and go into the military, serve our country. it reminds me of the dads who were working two jobs so they can make enough money so their kids have the kind of clothing the other kids are wearing at school. it reminds me of those single moms who are wondering how they can put food on the table and script and save to do so. the couples who say we're not exchanging christmas gifts among ourselves because we want our kids to have christmas. this is america. this is who we are. we are people who live for big things. the care about the future, for our kids, for our nation. for liberty. this is a critical time for america. it is a time we have to decide what we're going to be.

president obama wants a bigger and bigger government, more and more encompassing, more interested in our lives. that is not what makes america america. it is freedom that drives america. it is free people. [cheers and applause] we stand on the shoulders of the greatest generation. my mom and dad, your moms and dads, they fault, protected us, gave as a nation that is free and prosperous, the most prosperous nation in the world. they held a torch for the whole world to see, a torch of liberty and hope and opportunity. there are not as many of them as there were. they cannot hold the porch as high as they used to. it is our turn. we have to grab back porch. it is our honor to be able to do so. -- we have to grab that torch. when paul ryan and i become president and vice president,

and i mean when we become president and vice president -- [cheers and applause] we will do everything in our power to keep america strong, to restore the values that make our homes the center of society, to keep america strong and have a military so strong no one would ever think of testing it. that is the america we see. we make that commitment to you. we need your help! we need to win ohio! get your friends to help us win ohio! we win ohio, would keep america out the hope of the earth! thank you very much, you guys. lancaster, thank you very much! thank you! [cheers and applause] ♪

>> ♪ i was born free i was born free born free ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ i was born feree i was born free i was born free ♪

♪ i was born free i was born free i was born free born free i was born free

i was born free i was born free born free ♪

♪

>> thank you! [cheers and applause]

>> tonight, we will go live to palm desert, calif., for debate. this is the only televised debate for the 36 the consent -- congressional district. live coverage gets underway at 10:00 eastern. next tuesday, watch and engage with c-span as the presidential candidate's face off in the second of their three debates. live from hofstra university, c- span's debate preview begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern with the town hall debate beginning at 9:00. that is moderated by cnn chief political correspondent. and then you react as we take

your calls, email, and tweets. follow live coverage on c-span, c-span2 radio, and live on mine. >> this government has maintained the closest surveillance of the soviet military buildup on the island of cuba. within the past week, but unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. the purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the western hemisphere. >> do you, ambassador, denied the u.s.s. r is placing medium and intermediate range missiles and sites in cuba, yes or no? don't wait for the translation, yes or no? >> 13 days in october, 1962,

live sunday from the jfk presidential library and museum. historians, scholars, journalists on the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. that is starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span3. >> the thing about eisenhower is he would never tell anybody whether he was going to use nuclear weapons. why is this important? whense in the 1950's, nuclear weapons were new, which threaten to use them. at various stages. ike did. but nobody ever know if he was serious or not, if he meant it. of course, to be credible as a deterrent, you have to be credible, and ike never told anybody. i was fascinated by that. talk about the loneliness of command. the use of nuclear weapons. what could be a greater command decision that that? he ran the allied invasion in world war ii, liberated europe,

but now he is president and has a greater level of responsibility at a time when nuclear-weapons are new. the soviets are getting them, we've got them, and we're building a whole arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, h- bombs. are we going to use these things or not? and ike embraced this on usable weapon as a tool to avoid any war, basically. "ike's thomas on bluff." >> debate coverage continues now with candidates running for the governor's office in new hampshire. this debate is courtesy of wbin tv. this race is listed as a tossup. this is close to an hour. >> good evening. welcome to the first in our

debate-week series. tonight, it is our pleasure to welcome the democrat and republican candidates in the race for governor of the state of new hampshire. over the next hour, we will focus on the issues that matter most to the citizens of new hampshire, but first, the debate rolls. candidates get one minute to respond to direct questions, 32nd rebuttal -- 30 second rebuttals available as time allows. we will be doing two rounds of questions in which candidates have 60 seconds to respond. we will also have questions from the debate sponsored, aarp of new hampshire. time permitting, we will also have a lightning round of questions where candidates have 30 seconds to enter questions. the majority of the questions will be posed by our distinguished panel of journalists in two separate

panels. the first panel we have kevin from the telegraph, howard from the portsmouth herald, and the news director of wbin, martin. first, the republican candidate. he is a business attorney and was the republican nominee for governor back in 1996. ovide and his wife reside with their three children in this city of new hampshire. and democrat, maggie, the former new hampshire senate majority leader. she and her son -- she and her husband live in exeter with their two children. our first question comes from kevin. >> the new hampshire senate for

public policy read these reports and the new hampshire has powered the state's economy for decades is slipping away. what can be done to solve the problem? >> thank you, kevin, and thank you aarp new hampshire for sponsoring this debate. we are seeing an erosion of new hampshire advantage, largely because of the failed policies of the last 10 years, most of them led by maggie hassan and her colleagues. we have lost our rage because we have taken our eye off the ball, which has made new hampshire -- what has made a after exceptional is low government regulation, taxation and spending kept in check. i will begin with zero based budgeting for the state budget, looking at the statewide economic development plan, appointing a business advocates

to the governor's office to be a champion for business, and in acting business tax reform in new hampshire that will declare a tax holiday for job creators to jump-start the economy. >> again, thank you very much for having us. we are at a crossroads in new hampshire. we're either going to be able to continue on the path we started and built with the governor or will choose a governor who would side with the extreme legislature and drive us backwards. i have an innovation plan that provides for targeted tax credits, technical assistance to our businesses, and a strong and skilled workforce so our businesses can compete and grow and create jobs. it is in stark contrast to what has been going on in our state the last two years and in stark contrast to the lack of a plan that my opponent has put forward. we need to focus on a skilled work force so that innovative

companies will want to come to our state and we grow the economy. >> follow-up? >> ms, hassan, the report says the productivity of the labor force in recent years has lagged well behind some of our neighboring states. what one part of your jobs plan best addresses this challenge facing the state? >> first, the tax credits that i would like to double the research and development tax credit, something i sponsored with the governor when i was in the state senate. the technical assistance to our business, in particular small businesses who do not have the kind of resources and infrastructure. we need to be leveraging the expertise of our university systems and colleges to help small businesses. also, focusing on making sure we have a work force train for the jobs of today and tomorrow. >> the reason productivity is down is because the workers of our state are not given the

opportunity to be as productive as possible. over-regulation by state government as well as the federal government has been cited as one of the major reasons we have an economic recession continuing in new hampshire. we are 30,000 jobs short of where we were at the time of the great recession, and we have to deregulate new hampshire. part of my plan calls for that, and very specific and targeted ways to help job productivity and work productivity. >> our next question comes from howard of the portsmouth herald. >> if a pledge against an income tax is right for today, why not always? how do you reconcile your pledge against an income tax with your opposition to the constitutional amendment on this november's ballot that would write in income tax band into the constitution? >> thank you. i oppose an income sales tax and i would veto it if it came to my desk. i had a record of that

opposition and i have kept that pledge. i also opposed the constitutional amendment because we should amend our constitution only when we absolutely need to. i trust the people of new hampshire to make sure we do not have an income or sales tax, something they have done through their political system over many decades. i am also confident we should not blind future generations, we should be focusing on educating future generation said they make their own fiscal policy. i'm confident when they do with it will also oppose an income or sales tax and recognize it is not right for new hampshire. >> you supported by amending the state constitution to ban income-tax. does this mean that you think the state's reliance on property tax is the most fair way to fund essential services? >> it is important to note that as a fourth generation new hampshire native, i know that the anti-broadbased tax position is fundamental to the new hampshire advantage. my opponent was for an income

tax and ran on it before she now says she is against it, and has never explained to the voters why she has come to this conversion experience. i am for a broad based income tax ban in constitution to make sure that this will not be a threat for future generations, and i believe that local decision should be supported by local funding. i also believe in targeted aid, which is why i support a reversal of the decisions that have really destroyed local policy making for education as well as local funding and destroy the opportunity for the state to provide for targeted aid to help our cities and towns. we need full in the end, it is made by the decision makers in the city and town. >> the you have a plan to provide property tax relief to new hampshire residents? -- do you have a plan. >> i do.

specifically, it is bringing economic recovery back to new hampshire. we'll have more revenue and terms of broadening the tax base. that is the way it works. looking at opportunities for us to continue to provide incentives for senior citizens to stay in their homes as well as targeting aid to help the cities and towns that don't have the ability to provide education support. >> i oppose an income or sales tax and this is a promise that i have kept in the city senate and i will continue to keep. in a recent debate last week, it was said that we should pass another constitutional amendment he favors said that the state can walk away from its obligations to fund our local schools. in doing this, it would not drive property-tax is out.

it would in fact drive property taxes up. $18 million of state aid is going to our local schools. they would just get more crowded and property taxes would increase. the quality of our education would go down. >> governor lynch and i supported the constitutional amendment in this last session. we were able to put together a plan that would restore education policy and funding. this would eliminate the artificial structure. this is absolutely critical that we move in this direction. we need to make sure that our students and teachers have the best education possible. >> the next question is on hire education. >> good evening. >> you have recently stated that you support increasing

state scholarship aid for college students in new hampshire. how much money are we talking about and who should get that money? how much can the state of ford? please provide some detail. >> thank you for your question. as a former teacher myself, for years as a high school social studies teacher, chairman of the board of education, and father for two wonderful woman who went through our school system, i care deeply about education. this is important for the full- year college and the degree program. not all of our families can support or for what it costs. that is why i support a targets college of approach with additional money to be invested in higher education in new hampshire, beginning with community college. i have a plan that mary's the interest of it is and education to target aid and to make sure

that this didn't will have a job at the end of that process. -- to ensure that those students will have a job at the end of that process. that is what we should be focusing our efforts on. >> this is one of the major differences. i have a plan that would began restoring the drastic funding cuts that the legislature supports and that were imposed on our university system and at the same time freeze our tuition. he has said that the cost of tuition is not of utmost concern to him. well, it is to me. the people of new hampshire should understand that. we need to make sure that our colleges and universities are affordable for all of our students, not just those selected for a particular scholarship. when we make sure that they can afford the schools here, they will stay here and they will be our work force for tomorrow. we are losing young people.

it is a major difference between the two of us. this week, he said that my focus on education in terms of economic development is putting the cart before the horse. i don't think so at all. i think that this will take us backwards. -- i think his approach will take us backwards. >> you have called for a freeze for public schools in two years. they can do that providing you restore $100 million cut from the budget last year. where are you going to find that money? >> to one of the things i have done is put forward concrete proposals about how we will begin restoring funding to the university system and some other priorities that were cut so drastically by this legislature. i would reverse some of the very bad decisions that were made. they cut our cigarette tax. they might as well have said smoke more, steady less. they also laid off some

auditors and our department of revenue. those positions not only paid for themselves but they generate revenue from taxpayers who owe us money. we need to make sure that we're all paying our fair share. i supported a high end, highly- regulated casino near the border said that we can keep revenues that would otherwise go to massachusetts to build their roads, schools, bridges, here in hampshire. those are some of the concrete proposals i have in addition to making sure that we are growing the economy so that we can have the revenues that we need to find our parties. >> at a time when most new hampshire families are struggling to make their budgets balanced and meat, maggie talking about taking more money out of the private sector. she is willing to trade off tuition caps for funding the

system when many families cannot afford the current price. i am very concerned about the tuition rate in the state. i am also concerned about those families with access to higher education where it is out of reach. that is why i think we need targeted 8 in a public-private partnerships through a scholarship program. something like an education system where tax credits will be applied to provide scholarships support for our students and then to work on lowering the cost of education. capping tuition is not lower costs. working with our education leaders will work towards lowering the costs. we will not raise taxes or fees on our citizens, unlike our planet. i will work within the means given to me. >> our next question is for maggie. >> as the senate majority leader, you were a strong public supporter of the l l c tax.

you initially had a role in the statewide tax. why would it make you see this as a successful leader to the state? >> first of all, i am very proud of the fact that i work with the governor who is endorsing me tomorrow. on the state budget in 2009 at the height of the worst economy since the great depression. we left a $20 million surplus. the legislative accomplishments that speaks to my general approach, this is my very first term. as a remember of the minority party, i brought a coalition of republicans and democrats together to stand up against insurance companies for consumers. the companies were discriminated against businesses with sick workers. we got a coalition together to overturn that very misguided law

and that is a lot that would be reinstated under lamontagne's leadership. he has signed a pledge to deregulate all insurance companies. is important that we understand the choice here. we want to make sure that interest companies don't get to go between patients and their doctors. >> you have run for congress, run for governor, run for the u.s. senate. how have you changed that would make us think the results are going to be any different. >> i stand in the proud tradition of conservatives who have run before. nothing quite successful. i think that is where we are today. i come from a business perspective and i am a concord outsider, unlike my opponent.

her real stock in trade was that she was the majority leader of the senate. the facts did not side with her on balancing the budget. the last budget they had was out of balance to the point where the governor had to call a special session. every paper in the state called it either a phony budget or a budget that we should not be proud of. i would bring real world experience at a time when jobs is at the center of this campaign. i think my approach, putting my faith in the people and businesses of the state and working with them, not willing them, not trying to control their prices in their environment. that is the approach we will take. >> this is to be addressed to ovide lamontagne. >> the house passed a bill to allow virtually any person in

new hampshire to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. those that could not get a permit included the mentally unstable, victims of domestic abuse, and convicted felons. will you sign the bill or veto it? >> the bill you describe is called constitutional carry. vermont has a constitutional law and no one is accusing them of being overly conservative. they put their trust, their confidence, there favor of law abiding citizens. speaking of gun owners, i am an outdoorsman. i've spoken with gun owners over in vermont and they seek to keep these in place so that if you travel to another state, that reciprocity will be recognized. there is an appropriate place in

a society of ours to respect a fundamental right. that is the right to bear arms. that is a part of our culture, our economy. i stand with this but there has to be appropriateness. >> i support the second amendment and the right to defend yourself in your home. i support, and sent it to what has happened is in this legislature in terms of gun laws, the first thing when they took office in january was to allow guns into the state house. they have even proposed allowing felons to carry guns into that is not common sense and that is not the kind of leadership we need. it has always been the case in new hampshire where we balance the rights of people to carry arms with common-sense safety and that is why in six years, i never voted to change our gun

laws. i thought we had struck the right balance. i am concerned that today, this legislature, by allowing guns in the state house and by suggesting that college students should have them in their dorm rooms and by supporting a law that was passed over the governor's veto to allow criminals to open fire in public, they have gone too far. the policemen's association has endorsed me in this campaign. >> the next question is for ms. hassan. >> let's make a safe assumption for the sake of this question that the corporate owners determined that burying the power lines and the ground makes the project financially not feasible for them to pursue. if that is true, these are proposed for the north country. >> first of all, if you go up to

the north country, you are reminded what a spectacular state that we live in. i did not support the proposal. i thought the community input about the height of the towers had not been respected. it allows for imminent the main, something i don't support. moving forward, we do need to make sure that if this project is going to happen, new hampshire gets something out of it. they could lower their energy costs as a result of the project. i'm not sure that we should close the door. there is a win win that as possible and i think that any future proposal must respect the community input of the local communities and read the towers would be. without that support, it should not go forward. >> for the viewers, if you visit our web site, you will find my

position. in this regard, there is not that much difference, even though it is probably prioritizing, that i would have a different approach than my opponent. i have a camp in the north country. i spend my time there. i will be very cautious about seeing anything happen to the north country that would face a natural beauty. i want to make sure there's real value to the hampshire and minimal impact to our environment. that is what the lines should be carried as much as possible. we should be able to negotiate on behalf of the citizens of new hampshire, an agreement that would let us keep that power in new hampshire. >> now, we have a question from an aarp member. a question, "safe, affordable,

user-friendly transportation options are very affordable to seniors here in new hampshire that are unable to drive. will you commit to finding options that provide flexibility and providing greater mobility options for our citizens? >> well, thank you for the question. we need to make sure that we come together as a state and find a way to do what we need to do to improve our transportation system. that includes our roads and bridges. it obviously includes the kind of transportation system you are talking about and many of our older systems do need now or will need. that is why i differ with my opponent about whether we should accept federal funds to study whether rails should come up to national, manchester, farther north. we could have great economic development where it came up to

-- to i think about what that would give our economy. heat supported the rejection of that federal money that would have allowed us to study the cost analysis for all of our citizens. we need to have a transportation system that works for all of us. >> what i think she was asking about was accessibility to our senior citizens to live an independent life in their homes. i am proud that my dad was for many years a caregiver the month working here in manchester as a volunteer, helping the citizens that could not drive themselves. like most things, we have been successful because we have partnered with charitable and civic organizations. we not to set me to let government do this, we have said we need to work with these organizations. this is a regional approach we need to take. some areas will have a different

infrastructure need than a more rural community. we need to work with regional planners, with local government, and private organizations to come up with a safety net to provide for enhance transportation for our senior citizens and those with disabilities as well. i think we can do that in partnership. >> stay with us, we will be right back with more. welcome back. we are now joined by -- our news director is still with us.

another question from a member here in a hampshire fashir inner picture -- here in new hampshire. >> that is it and a very timely question. one of the things we need to be mindful is that obamacare finds itself in part because of reductions to home health care, medicare, and other programs. that is why i propose a new hampshire solution. the obamacare plan forces this

to be found under medicaid. this should be bought granted back to the state meeting minimal requirements which will provide more flexibility and directing resources to help our citizens stay at home, to provide them the ability to migrate at their natural pace into assisted living and nursing homes. do it the new hampshire way which should be more effective in terms of cost, quality, affordability, accessibility. that is the approach would take as the governor. >> thank you for the question. it is very important that we support and take advantage for community-engage and home care for seniors with disabilities. what people should understand is that when ovide talks about his health care plans, he is talking about this dry and the state from the federal medicare program as well as rejecting -- she is talking about withdrawing --

he is talking about withdrawing the federal medicare program from the state. this is a legislature that drastically cut funding to our hospitals, limiting patient access to our citizens throughout the state. that is not something i would do. we need to support medicare and make sure that our seniors have high quality care. i would also work with the medicaid managed program for community-based at home care. >> now, to our panel. a question of privatization prisons. >> good evening to you both. a plan to privatize the state's prison is explored by the administrative services office and the department of corrections. you have expressed reservations about this idea. are there areas which you think could be better handled by the private-sector? >> thank you for the question.

i do oppose prepositions the prisons because the public safety record of the companies that run those prisons as well as the financial record is that it does not improve public safety and it often costs taxpayers more in the long run. i think it is a bad idea. i am proud that the manchester police association is supporting me. in terms of other areas, i think that it is always worth being careful to consider how we fund the reforms which would increase efficiency so that we could save money in state government. i certainly would look at issues like potential private-public partnerships around infrastructure as a way of bringing the infrastructure in. it is important that we focus on making state government as integrated and efficient as we can. >> when it comes to the care of human lives, i draw from my

experience that we need to make sure that all human beings within the care of government are given the respect and dignity that they deserve. that comes from my pro-life position. i think it is important that we look at privatisation when it comes to the care of human beings. putting the burden on those that the preferred to privatize the facilities. i would look at other opportunities. my position would shift when it comes to other functions of state government. information technology, we are way behind in the hampshire. we need to come up with a public private partnership to bring us to the modern age. but how to reform state government. i am not for taking over medicare, as my opponent says. i'm about to have your best based solutions when it comes to health care. >> and next question comes from

clay from the concord monitor. >> and doubling back to medicaid just for a moment. thanks to the recent supreme court ruling on obamacare, states have a say on whether to accept federal dollars to extend their programs. as you just mentioned, you backed excepting such money if it is in the form of a block grant. can you assure you hampshire residents that if you accept the money that it would actually increase insurance coverage? >> actually, i can. my approach, this is very important for job creation. health care is one of the major issues that is stopping businesses from expanding new businesses from coming to new hampshire. largely because of the things we have done to ourselves. we need an overall health care reform. my proposal would be to take those additional dollars and use

it to find a high risk pool and work with our health insurers in the private market and direct individuals to access this through businesses or on their own. then to the private insurance marketplace. if we can expand the number of its shares in the state, we will have a much better delivery system. we will maintain costs, we will increase quality. >> i don't think that he's been straight forward about his plans. obamacare calls for about an additional billion dollars in federal money to come to the state of new hampshire to expand coverage for people, individuals earning $15,000 or less, families earning the thousand dollars or less, said that we could have affordable, high- quality health care for more and more of our citizens and invest in preventive and primary costs. he has opposed to taking the money. for him to imply that there is

an option on the table to take that billion dollars and somehow looked at it differently is really misleading. on his website, he posts an op ed he wrote about opting out of medicare. his supporters in the legislature passed a bill that will allow us to opt out of medicare which would allow the legislature to make decisions for our seniors. >> the facts to not mind up with what maggie said. first of the outcome of the supreme court has said that the bill is an election now. we cannot force the states to bring in uninsured into medicaid. that is the proposal. even the governor was opposed back in 2009. that is why we have leverage. we can work with the federal government not to expand medicaid, which is a very

important program. we are proposing to take us dollars and use them for a private insurance pool and a high risk component. in terms of medicare, this is a federal program and there is a lot of confusion about this. at the national level and here locally, there is nothing that the governor can do about this. i am running for governor. i am asking the people to look at my record d to look at the positions i have taken on the specific plans on our website and make a decision as to has the better idea for you and your families. >> this is really one of the areas where i don't think that he is being straight forward. there is no option on the table right now to take the billion dollars and do something else with it. for him to say that there is is really misleading. he is proposing taking the money from the federal government at the same time there has been significant cuts to our hospital and health care system

which has been decimated. you are running for governor. governess to get to decide whether to sign a bill that would have the state opt out of medicare, a bill that this legislature passed, a legislature that he has supported and praised. it is important for the voters to understand that the government does have influence on this. if he thinks the governor did not, he's not be talking about his medicare plan on this web site. >> our next question, we have for ms. hassan. >> new hampshire is the los angeles state in the country. how could this be better founded in new hampshire and you have any better ideas for marketing the state? -- do hampshire is the lowest funded state for tourism in the country. >> we want a marketing effort towards our state. this is something that we have partnered with the hospitality industry to do. we have seen some great pickup

in our tourism business in the last couple of years. this legislature took away that money from a dedicated fund and effort. what i want to do as governor is make sure that we have a transportation infrastructure that welcomes tourists to our state and make sure that we look very carefully at building a manchester international airport, and expand our international trade efforts to have better relationships with other countries and other economies to bring more and more people to the state. that is what we can do to help our tourism industry, along with some of the technical instance i talked about. this is to especially help small businesses make sure they can build international trade. >> the 2009 budget took some of the rooms and meals tax to use as a funding stream for some of the credit card borrowing that maggie and her colleagues

implemented in new hampshire. her budget was not an honest budget, it included the taking expenses offline which should have been used for tourism. we need to make sure that there are dedicated funds and a commitment to fund tourism promotion and should work with the development plan that takes into consideration the tourism industry which is such an important part of our fabric in new hampshire and target resources to support it. leadership i will bring to economic leadership here in new hampshire. >> i next question is for mr. lamontagne. >> you have been criticized for expanding gaming represented by your law form complies rockingham park deli place for and why not follow the competitive bid process? wouldn't everyone involved benefit from a transparent

process? >> it would be if the bill provides -- and this is what i would ask for -- for the legislature and the proponents who want expanded gaming for economic benefit, look of the regions of our state. the only parts of our state that have had more than 100 years of gaming is rockingham park on the board of massachusetts, along i-93, which is right off of an exit. it is the logical place to bring in the economy from the northern massachusetts sector and to focus on that. and that is transparent. bills of about four that declare what they will do will give people a chance to be heard on this. if i'm elected governor, i am leaving my firm. sad to say, but will have to pick and will not have any vested interest. i don't have been -- i have a vested interest in this proposal. i have an interest to make sure that we contain the growth of extended gaming. mine is a targeted approach with economic development for an area

once the bed appeared in the site is rockingham park. >> i do support when highly regulated casino near the massachusetts border and i have been very clear about that. my concern about his proposal is that he is giving up the opportunity to get the very best deal over the stock -- for the state that he can get. if you do not have a competitive bidding process and rockingham knows that it has been preselected, we will have the negotiating power that would otherwise have to make sure that the state is getting the best possible deal for our citizens. natalie to make sure we have adequate revenues -- not only to make sure that we have adequate revenues for economic development, but also address the safety concerns that come with gambling. and i don't think he is being straightforward either about his firm's relationship with rockingham park. they are a current client. they currently pay fees to his law firm. he has been a lobbyist and lawyer with the law firm. and i think it is wrong and it really gives people a lack of

confidence in our government for someone running for governor to preselect a client's location without a transparent or competitive bidding process. >> both of us are part of large firms in this region and we have a lot of clients who have interest. we can go back and forth. i have been not -- i have not been a lobbyist for rockingham park. what is important is that we have a targeted approach on this issue. what the people of new hampshire can support and is no more transparent than doing it to the legislative process with the public hearings. we don't leave it to chance that somehow the system is rigged. is there and transparent. i think that is what the people of new hampshire want to know. what is the strategic decision being made and where will we places if we have it at all.

>> thank you for the question. i do support and appropriate medical marijuana bill. one of the things we heard about and i was in the state senate were some citizens around the state who suffer from debilitating conditions and find their only relief to really difficult and horrible pain in medical marijuana. i think it is important that we find a way to make sure that we can have prescribed medical marijuana. we need to make sure that you're identifying the conditions for which it can be prescribed. it needs to be prescribed by a doctor. and i think the the thing that has been a challenge is making sure that we have a dispensing system that works for the people of new hampshire and that is

easy for public safety officers to enforce. we need to have dispensaries that are not for profit, that are controlled closely, and we need to make sure that we do not turn it into something like california where there has been real problems with the dispensing aspect of it appeared >> there's nothing more personal in a human experience other than immediate family members than working with primary-care physicians and working with your doctors and those providers. if a physician feels that of a given the circumstances that a press -- a patient presents with medical marijuana can help with that, we need to make sure that it is doctor prescribed. it needs to be handled not only by a doctor's office, but i -- but by dispensary which is a pharmacy. that needs to be done by the federal drug did ministration and federal authorities need to know about that. many to track that pharmaceutical product but we

do in current natural law to track other kinds of pharmaceutical products were people can become addicted and so forth. with the proper controls, and corporate medicinal reasons, we can have this in new hampshire. as they just passed in connecticut. >> our next question is on right to work. >> you are a supporter of right to work. how do expected able to work with state employees in new hampshire if your agenda essentially attacks their current employment status? or does it? " it really does not attack the current employment status. it gives freedom of choice to employees to become a part of a union or not. it is in power in the individual. it is giving the individuals within a bargaining unit who is working in a place of business the ability to vote with their feet and what it does is into a certain level of accountability which is currently not there

with an existing union shop. but right to work is even more important than that. it is a marketing tour for -- it is a marketing tool for new hampshire. oklahoma has seen an in migration of workers, higher productivity. it is lagging in hampshire. we have an opportunity to brand your statement to make our city more competitive states to attract new businesses and empower our employees to decide for themselves whether or not they want to become part of the union. >> thank you for the question. i oppose right to work because it allows the government, the state of new hampshire, to tell employers and employees what kind of bargaining, what kind of contract they can agree on a new employee is required to join a union. they are only required to pay dues is coming in the collective bargaining process, the employer and the employees actually agree to it.

so i don't the state of new hampshire to get in the way of that contract. the other thing is, i was just on the phone with the commissioner economic development today who pointed out to me that the right to work states, 23 of them now, unemployment rate is almost double ours. the poverty rate is almost double ours. why would we want to do that? finally, right to work sets the wrong tone. i have been in labor and employment lawyer for most of my career. and of the most successful businesses have good relationships and partnerships with their employees, who want the same thing, which is to grow the economy working with governments, with the together job training programs, collaborative lee with employees and labor unions and those programs moved our state forward pig that is the approach would take as governor pierre >. >> there is a sharp distinction here where my opponent's stance and she stands on controlling the workplace.

i stand for freedom and liberty for our workers. that is an important issue, not only for the workplace, but for an actor as a state. i would submit to any viewer that wants to more about right to work to take a look at the states that have right to work in them. we would be the first state north of virginia and eastern indiana to be a right to work state. we would be the only state in our region. we would be a magnet for our businesses to come here. it is part of the economic development and recovery for new hampshire pierre >> what he is talking that is a very divisive approach. it is putting workers and employers against each other. it is not the way that we will build our economy. we need to include everybody in economic life of our state. right to work does have the state interfering with collective bargaining agreements. more importantly, it pushes people out of the process. we need to look at the states that have right to work yet they have a standard of living much lower than we do and we should not be trying to emulate that.

>> for the next question -- >> the state board of education said they would stop taking new applications for new charter schools because they fear there would not be enough funding. would you make funding a charter schools a priority? >> when i was in the senate, i fought very hard for the funding of public charter schools. it is a move and i support because it is a critical piece of a strong public education system. one of the differences between me and my opponent is that, when he was a chair of the board of education, back in the 1990's, his soul, -- this small accomplishment was rejecting funding. the difficulty has been that, once the federal dollars go way, we needed state funds to continue the support without impacting dramatically the cash flow of the local schools.

that is something that i am committed to working on because they are an important component of our school system. what will not help our school system is my opponents approach to state funding of education, which would be to allow the constitutional amendment tuesday to walk away from funding public education, driving up our property taxes up and bring in the quality of our education down. >> once again, the backs are not on her side. when i was chairman of the state board of education, i was critically important as part of the team to actually pass the first -- the initial charter school legislation in new hampshire. if it were not for my leadership working with the leadership of the senate and house and gov. merrill, we would not have to order schools in the state. i. accomplishments include raising teacher certification standards. also in some -- also implementing standards. the charter school is part of the school system now, which it

is something i am proud to include in our agenda could the state department of education should not be standing in the way of this funding issue. i will definitely find charter schools. but i also think we need more choice in education. to decentralize the system that is basically designed on post- world war room and one models -- a post world war one models. >> for our final question, candid it's, you have 30 seconds on this final question. >> this goes first to mr. lamontagne. you downplayed proposals to repeal the marriage because it is not a priority for you. but last spring, you stood on the statehouse lawn and pledged to help repealed ala. should voters believe what you emphasize now or what your emphasizing then? >> voters should believe what i have in my website and my

prosperity agenda. it is focused on jobs, the economy and reforming state government. that is critically important right now in these times. i am a conservative. i am not hiding from that parent if the legislature were to pass a bill to respect existing marriages, both gay marriage and heterosexual marriages, with civil unions, i would support repealing the marriage yet giving civil-rights to those who are of same-sex orientation. >> i support marriage equality. i was on an airplane last spring when i -- when a man sitting next to me started a conversation and said that he recruits for new hampshire's business and marriage equality is a major recruitment tool for him because people are going to our state because we want to include all people of talent and energy in our economy. on this, along with the issues surrounding women's health care, women's access to cancer

screening and the funding of planned parenthood has extreme agenda pin he will sign those bills should they come to his desk as gov.. >> i think the record is very clear as far as what the agenda should be. it should be about jobs and the economy. that is what people have said in this state. that is the focus i will bring. i will be a leader for a change here in new hampshire, working with our legislature to get a right agenda set and the right agenda is about jobs and the economy. >> earlier this evening, a coin flip was held to see who would select to make their closing arguments -- their closing statements last. it was won by miss hassan. so mr. lamontagne, you have one minute for your closing statement. >> thank you for hosting this debate. this is a critically important election here in new hampshire could this is an opportunity for

us to chart a new course, it course of freedom, liberty, prosperity for our citizens, one that offers a brighter future for our young people. new hampshire has been based on a work ethic, the self sacrifice of generations of families. i am the beneficiary of the sacrifices myself. and i want to make sure that we leave new hampshire in a better place than we found it, then we inherited. i need your help. i will be a governor for all the people and i will sign or veto any bill that comes to me and i will set leadership and we will find bipartisanship across the aisle. i ask you to join our team ovide2012.com. thank you very much. >> miss hassan you have one minute. >> thank you for hosting this debate tonight. we are at a crossroads and the

choice for voters is very stark. we can either continue on the path set by gov. john lynch, bringing people together, moving forward and improving our economy or we can elect a governor who will side with the extreme legislature, with the needs of middle-class families take a backseat to an extreme and divisive agenda. my opponent thinks it is wrong for the state to ensure that every child has kindergarten, access to public kindergarten pin he would have as opt out of medicare. he would defund planned parenthood, raising health care costs for women around the state. those are just some of the examples of his extreme agenda. he will sign and support them if they come to his desk. i have an innovative economic plan with tax credits, technical assistance, and strong work force that will help all of our families have opportunity. i oppose 9 sales tax and i

appreciate your support. >> we would like to think the candidates and you, our audience, for joining us this evening. please come back again tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. when the candidates for new hampshire is first congressional district meet to debate right here on wbin 18. >> c-span was camping 2012 coverage continues this evening with a live u.s. has to be for california's 36 the district. republican congresswoman mary boehner mac faces off with -- hosted by the desert sun and kmir 6. >> can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and

the mud? i think there is a need, if we can take a poll here, from the folks from gallup perhaps, this is a real need to focus on the needs. >> how do you respond? >> i agree with him. >> in general, let's talk about these issues. let's talk about the programs that come in the presidency, a lot of it goes into it. caring goes into it. that is not specific and strength goes into it and that is not specific and standing up against aggression, that is not specific. this is what a president has to do. in principle, i will take your point and think we ought to discuss child care or whatever else it is. >> and you too? >> no ifs, ands and buts. i will take the pledge because i know the american people want to talk about issues and not tabloid journalism. i will take the pledge and stay on the issues. just for the record, i don't

have any spin doctors. i don't have any speech writers. it probably shows. [laughter] i make those charts you see on television. [laughter] it don't have to wonder if is me talking. what you see is what you get good if you don't like it, you have two other choices. >> i want to say this one thing, in fairness. the ideas i express are mine. i have worked on these things for 12 years and i am the only person up here who has not been a part of washington in any way for the last 20 years. i do want the implication to be that somehow everything we say is cooked up and put in our head by somebody else. i worked 12 years very hot as a governor on the real problems of real people. i am just as sick as you are of wicking of every day and having to figure out how to develop -- of waking up every day and having to figure out how to defend myself every day. >> senate john mccain and then senator barack obama from 2008

bid at 835, -- from 2008. next tuesday, watch president obama and mitt romney in their town hall debate could c-span coverage starts at 7:00 a.m. -- at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> earlier today, secretary state hillary clinton said the state department cannot prevent every act of violence directed at overseas diplomats. she gave those comments at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international studies. here is a portion. >> i want to add and close with one more thought. benghazi.t happened in endows it is very personal for me and all the men and women in the state department. diplomacy, by its nature, has to

be often practiced in dangerous places. we send people to diplomatic posts in 170 countries around the world. and, yes, some of those are in war and conflict zones. others are in unstable countries with complex threats and no u.s. military presence. that is the reality of the world we live in. and we will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism or achieve perfect security. our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs. but it is our solemn responsibility to constantly improve, to reduce the risk our people face and make sure they have the resources they need to do those jobs we expect from them. and, of course, nobody takes them more seriously than i and

the city professionals at the state department do. chris stevens understood that diplomats must operate in many places where soldiers do not or cannot, where there are no other goods on the ground and security is far from guaranteed. and like so many of our brave colleagues and those who served in our armed services as well, he volunteered for his assignment. last year, our ambassador to syria was a salted in damascus by pro-regime thugs. but he insisted on continuing to meet with peaceful protesters and serving as a living manifestation of americans support. and when he drove to the battered city of hamas, people they're covered his car with flowers.

people like chris and robert represent diplomacy and america at its and our best. they know that, when america is absent, especially from the dangers places, there are consequences. extremism takes root. our interest suffers and our security at home is threatened. so we will continue sending our diplomats and development experts to dangerous places. the united states will not retreat appeared we will keep leading and we will stay in gates' everywhere in the world, including in those hard places where america's interests and values are at stake. that is who we are and that is the best way to honor those who we have lost. and that is also how we ensure our country's global leadership for decades to come.

thank you all very much. >> that was a portion of secretary clinton's remarks from earlier today. and just a reminder, you can see her entire speech at an event hosted by the center for strategic and international affairs or you can watch online any time in our video library. really did believe him. i did not want to go back to mexico and i wanted to make him proud. and another thing that fell to was that, because i beg him to bring me, i felt like i owe him

that. i never wanted my father to say i never should have brought you. >> winner of the american book award and an international latino book award about growing up an illegal alien in los angeles. part of the tv is a part of the tv on c-span 2 this weekend. >> we asked c-span viewers about what they thought about the vice-presidential debate. here's what they had to say. >> i thought vice-president biden was very rude. he cut off paul ryan all the time. >> i really went on vice biden.ent by ib i see the sincerity in his response. i could feel his love for the people.

on the other hand, ryan, first of all, he needs to go to the doctor because he drinks a lot of water. >> i thought they gave paul ryan more time, which opposes why joe biden had to interrupt small- time. i felt that paul ryan was very scripted. this is the way they have been training him for the past two weeks or for however long i felt that joe biden knew what he was talking about. >> joe biden came across to me as a cranky old man, very unlikable, barry and presidential. he was sneering. he was rude. he was talking over and out of turn. very disruptive, laughing, grimacing, smirking, shaking his head, pointing the finger, using an angry tone of voice, very condescending and using the term "my friend."

and he taught more than paul ryan did come almost two minutes more. >> i really enjoyed this debate. it was so much more substantial in the way that it was handled by the moderator. i am an independent. but i am probably going to vote for the president again. i just don't really liked the way that romney and ryan are so conservative. >> i think that paul ryan's closing statement was superior. >> obama was interrupted more and joe biden was not really allowed as long amount of time as paul ryan was paired i suggest that, when obama comes back again, he takes his own alarm clock so he can prove who

talking more. >> i think it was nauseating the way that mr. biden laughed all the way through. does he not take anything serious? he is in debt and incompetent as .bama appeare >> i felt that paul ryan held his own. he was very calm and very respectful. joe biden was very sarcastic, very angry and frustrated. >> i think there could have been more clarity on paul ryan is part as far as trying to deliver a little bit more -- taking a little bit more charge ain what u.s. try to implement. i mentioned before that the joe biden's son was a little bit more used car salesman approach -- joe biden's side was a little

bit more used-car salesman approach. i think that paul ryan could have done a lot better. >> i am kind of frustrated that they did not let gary johnson debate. >> i found that vice-president joe biden was very clear. he was concise. he was very factual. i just did not feel that credibility with ryan. he seemed like he piggybacked on everything that vice-president joe biden said. >> i just made my decision. i am going democrat. i think joe biden backed up with all the information. i kept waiting for the other side to give it to me and they just did not show it. >> paul ryan got caught trying to do decorum and he can do that